Prime
Jailed MPs lose bid to have case referred to Constitutional Court
Kawempe North MP Muhammad Ssegirinya (left) and his Makindye West counterpart Allan Ssewanyana at the International Crimes Division of the High Court in Kololo, Kampala, on September 28, 2022. PHOTO | ABUBAKER LUBOWA
High Court in Kampala has declined to refer to the Constitutional Court a case in which two remanded Members of Parliament had sought legal interpretation in regard to state witness protection.
Mr Allan Ssewanyana (Makindye West) and Mr Muhammad Ssegirinya (Kawempe North) are on remand on accusations of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, and aiding and abetting terrorism.
Justice Alice Khaukha of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court Thursday ruled that the pre-trial criminal session shall proceed as agreed to by the parties.
The MPs who have been on remand for over a year had asked whether the protection of witnesses in the manner within the court’s ruling contravenes and is inconsistent with Articles 28 and 44, whether rule 22 of the judicature rules 2016 is inconsistent with articles 28,42 and 44.
They further wondered whether the act of proceeding on similar charges based on similar facts to try the accused persons both at the ICD and High Court Masaka isn’t inconsistent with Articles 28 and 44.
“I find that the questions 1 and 2 as raised by counsel for the accused do not call for constitutional interpretation because the Constitutional Court already pronounced itself on the same in earlier cases and that the ICD rules are clearly in line with that court decision,” Justice Khaukha ruled.
Justice Khaukha, however expressed reservations on how the third question was framed, arguing that it creates an impression that the court ordered for parallel criminal proceedings -- one in Masaka and another before the ICD-- on similar charges based on similar facts which she said was not true.
“This court observed that the two cases do not have similar charges and similar facts though the offences are of a similar character. This was concluded and as a presiding judge in that application, I cannot revisit it to frame a question out of it for reference to the Constitutional Court for interpretation,” Justice Khaukha ruled.
The accused through their lawyer, Mr Caleb Alaka had argued that it’s the Constitutional Court to rule whether or not three articles, which all rotate around a right to a fair hearing, are not contravened.
“Your honour, I believe that such a decision contravenes the right to fair hearing that includes having sufficient time to prepare the defence for the accused persons,” Mr Alaka submitted.
“… for the matter to be referred to the Constitutional Court does not contravene Article 28 of the Constitution, which provides that an accused person shall be given a public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law,” he added.
However, the Prosecution led by Richard Birivumbuka and Joseph Kyomuhendo told the court that the decision made by the Court on witness protection does not in any way require a constitutional interpretation.
“This application has been brought in bad faith as it does not demonstrate any kind of violations of the articles talked about,” Mr Kyomuhendo contended.
[email protected]
