The High Court of Uganda has been petitioned in a landmark human rights case filed by 27-year-old global industrialist Vasundhara Oswal, who accuses senior security officials of arbitrary arrest, illegal detention and inhumane treatment stemming from her October 2024 incarceration.
In court documents submitted in Kampala, Oswal — executive director of PRO Industries and Oswal Group Global — alleges she was held for 21 days without evidence, despite a court release order, in violation of constitutional guarantees and international human rights law.
The petition names several high-ranking officers within the Uganda Police Force, including Assistant Inspector General of Police and Interpol Director Joseph Obwona and former Commissioner of Police for Interpol Allison Agaba. Also cited are Joseph Kyomuhendo, head of the Human Trafficking Division in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), police detective Thomas Bbale, CID officer Annette Karungi, and a former employee, Santosh Dwibhashi.
According to the filing, Oswal was detained for three weeks without formal evidence being presented and was allegedly denied access to legal counsel and medication. The petition further claims she was subjected to degrading treatment, including being forced to kneel and strip in front of officers, and was deprived of basic necessities such as food, water and hygiene facilities.
Her legal team, the international firm Volterra Fietta, described the case as “an egregious breach of both Ugandan legislation and international human rights law,” stating that the petition seeks accountability and systemic reform rather than confrontation.
Constitutional and international law claims
The petition argues that her detention violated Article 23 of Uganda’s Constitution, which safeguards personal liberty, and Article 24, which prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. It also cites Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on protection against arbitrary detention.
In addition, Oswal alleges that judicial orders authorising her release were disregarded, raising concerns about the enforcement of court decisions and the integrity of due process. The petition also seeks the return of personal property, including jewellery and bond money amounting to $200,000, which it says has not been returned despite repeated requests to the ODPP.
The family had separately petitioned the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to review Uganda’s handling of the matter.
Investment climate implications and ongoing commitment
Oswal, described in the release as one of the youngest female industrial leaders operating in Africa’s bioethanol sector, said she was confident that the judiciary would uphold the rule of law and hold those responsible accountable.
“Our investment in PRO Industries reflects our long-term confidence in Uganda,” she said in the statement, adding that she retains faith in the judiciary to uphold investor rights.
However, the petition underscores potential reputational risks for the country. Oswal warned that the case could be interpreted negatively by foreign investors, particularly from India, who have historically approached Uganda’s market with caution.
She also emphasised, “It’s important that the court addresses the conduct of the individuals involved and reaffirms that this matter does not reflect a failure of the system itself, but rather the actions of a limited number of individuals. We have full faith in Uganda’s judiciary to safeguard international investors and to reinforce our commitment to continued investment in the country’s development.”
The statement also expressed gratitude to President Yoweri Museveni, who visited the PRO Industries plant in late 2025, signalling, as the family described it, ongoing presidential support for the company’s industrialisation efforts.
Relief sought
The petition calls for the prosecution of officials involved in what it terms an unlawful arrest and detention; a formal declaration that her constitutional rights were violated; compensation for psychological and reputational harm; and restitution of confiscated assets.
The case now places Uganda’s judiciary under scrutiny as it weighs serious allegations against senior security officials.
Neither the Uganda Police Force nor the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions had publicly responded to the allegations at the time of filing.
As proceedings commence at the High Court, the outcome is likely to resonate beyond the personal grievance of a single investor, testing Kampala’s assurances on judicial independence, investor protection and the rule of law at a time when the country is actively courting foreign capital into its energy and manufacturing sectors.
