Human rights judge convicted of slavery sparks online flames
Amplification of posts stokes a storm of polarised comments, victim-blaming and false claims
On 02 May 2025, Reading Crown Court in the United Kingdom sentenced Ugandan High Court judge and former United Nations tribunal member Lydia Mugambe to six years and four months in prison. Once celebrated for a landmark 2017 ruling that advanced protections for vulnerable women in Uganda, Mugambe was convicted of modern slavery, immigration offences, and witness intimidation.
Worldwide, more than 50 million people, mostly women, are victims of modern slavery annually and only a small number of the cases are detected. The most high-risk countries in the European Union are Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Romania. The perpetrators are usually connected to organised crime groups, but there are a few exceptions when a white-collar, high-ranking official commits such a crime — as did Mugambe.
The piquancy of the case is that Mugambe’s earlier work in human rights was nominated for a global award.
The case against Mugambe centred on Aidah [not her real name], a Ugandan woman brought to the UK under false pretences. She was promised paid work but ended up in Mugambe’s home as an unpaid domestic worker and nanny. Her passport was confiscated, her movements restricted, and she testified to feeling ‘trapped’ and lonely. After nearly a year, Aidah managed to borrow a phone and contact a friend, triggering the police investigation that ultimately exposed the abuse.
The online narratives
Between March and May 2025, Mugambe’s case generated more than 90,000 mentions on X, with nearly 17 million views and almost half a million interactions. The overwhelming majority were reposts, showing how amplification rather than original reporting drove the conversation.
Much of that conversation strayed from the facts. At least 61 posts described Aidah as a ‘sex slave,’ despite the court ruling explicitly defining her exploitation as forced labour. Sensationalist posts from outlets like The Sudan Times and influencers such as @RANeal2444 recycled the false claim, attracting more than 400,000 views and 13,000 engagements.
Many comments align with the well-known phenomenon of victim-blaming in modern slavery cases; people claimed that Aidah fabricated her story to secure a UK visa or residency. X posts have also accused Aidah of lying or exploiting the case for immigration benefits, using derogatory language to question her credibility.
Another thread of commentary called for defunding the United Nations. These posts portrayed Mugambe’s conviction as evidence of corruption within the organisation where she once served as a judge. ‘Defund the UN,’ wrote one user in response to a viral post about her case, part of a cluster of 25 quoted posts that together drew more than 40,000 views.
Her prior advocacy for reparations for Africa also became a target. Nearly 200 mentions highlighted what users described as hypocrisy, framing her conviction as proof that African calls for reparations were hollow. One post claimed: ‘This entitled legal joke was a campaigner for reparations,’ using her case to inflame racialised debates about slavery’s history.
Some claims also suggested that Mugambe’s actions reflected a Ugandan cultural norm of exploiting domestic workers.
The case, understandably, has also fuelled intense criticism of Mugambe, amplified by her high-profile status. Her role as a former Columbia University fellow led to heated sentiments of betrayal on X, with terms like ‘fraud’ and ‘corrupt judge’. Some posts escalated to attacks, insinuating her as the emblem of judicial corruption.
At the same time, supportive voices emerged, though they were smaller in number. Ugandan users posted messages of solidarity, and some travelled to the courthouse carrying placards. But their defence of Mugambe was drowned out by the scale of hostile or distorted narratives online.
The case of Mugambe shows how criminal proceedings can be repurposed online, serving not only as news but as raw material for disinformation, hate speech, and broader political agendas. The facts of the trial — unpaid domestic servitude, intimidation, and a conviction backed by evidence — were often overshadowed by false claims of sexual slavery, calls to dismantle international institutions, and divisive narratives about race and reparations.
The story in detail
According to sentencing remarks by judge David Foxton, Aidah was no stranger to the Mugambe family, having worked for the family in Uganda where she was given accommodation and supported in her studies. When Mugambe went to the UK to study towards a PhD at Oxford University she decided to bring Aidah to work as a domestic worker and nanny to her three children. She had no authority to arrange a work visa for Aidah and so leant on her connection with Uganda’s then deputy high commissioner to London, John Mugerwa, to arrange a visa.
Allegedly Mugambe promised to influence legal proceedings in Uganda for Mugerwa in exchange for his assistance, but the details of the specific legal case are unknown. After reports regarding his involvement started circulating, Mugerwa, who represented his country in Nairobi and New York before he arrived in London, quietly returned to Uganda at the end of the summer last year.
The manner in which the visa was arranged led to Mugambe’s ‘serious breach of the UK immigration laws’. Mugerwa has stipulated that Aidah would be working for him as is allowed for diplomats in the UK. All along he knew she would be working for Mugambe.
Aidah was led to believe she would receive paid employment and support. Instead, according to her testimony, she was forced into unpaid domestic servitude and childcare, with her passport and identity documents confiscated. She was not allowed to seek other employment, and her movements and communications were tightly controlled.
She testified feeling “lonely” and “trapped,” with limited contact with the outside world. Mugambe threatened to destroy her passport and bank card and warned her against contacting authorities, exploiting Aidah’s lack of knowledge about her rights in the UK.
Once she had been arrested, Mugambe also tried to intimidate Aidah into not testifying against her.
‘As you became increasingly desperate about your forthcoming trial, you organised a number of attempts to contact the victim through your niece, through the victim’s pastor and through her family, for the purpose of intimidating her so she would not give evidence against you,’ Foxton said at the sentencing hearing.
He went on to explain how Aidah, who has been granted lifelong anonymity and was awarded compensation, feared for her life both in the UK and should she ever return to Uganda.
‘The case has attracted considerable comment in Uganda, some of it critical of the victim, which has been a source of distress to her … she expresses the fear that what she describes as powerful people in Uganda might take actions against her if she ever returned to Uganda. She states that, for that reason, she feels unable safely ever to return to Uganda to see her family. In addition, her inability to give the address of the safe house where she is staying is making it difficult for her to obtain employment.’
Fall of an icon
Lydia Mugambe Ssali was born in Uganda on 24 March 1975. She attended Makerere University, Uganda’s oldest and most prestigious institution, earning a bachelor of laws. She furthered her legal education with a master of laws from the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and later pursued doctoral research at the University of Oxford, where her criminal case later began.
Mugambe’s early career was marked by a steady rise through Uganda’s judiciary, beginning as a magistrate and culminating in her appointment to the High Court in 2013. Her international credentials include serving as a judge at the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and as a fellow at Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights. These roles positioned her as a prominent figure in both Ugandan and international legal circles.
The recognition she has received for her work has made her conviction even more controversial.
In July 2024, the United Nations International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals waived Mugambe’s immunity.
As Foxton said: ‘This is a very sad case.’
This article was written by Edward Tumwine and Bella Twine, freelance journalists working with Pravda Association, and edited by Eva Vajda and Leizl Eykelhof.