Prime
Jailed MPs Ssegirinya, Ssewanyana appeal to Constitutional Court on witness protection
Kawempe North MP Muhammad Segirinya (left) and his Makindye West counterpart Allan Ssewanyana with their lawyer, Mr Erias Lukwago, at the International Crimes Division of the High Court in Kololo, Kampala on October 10, 2022. PHOTO/ ISAAC KASAMANI
Two jailed Members of Parliament have asked for a Constitutional Court interpretation on the issue of non-disclosure of the state witnesses in their case.
Mr Allan Ssewanyana (Makindye West) and Mr Muhammad Ssegirinya (Kawempe North) are on remand on accusations of terrorism, murder, attempted murder, aiding and abetting terrorism.
Appearing before the International Crimes Division of the High Court presided over by Justice Alice Khaukha Komuhangi yesterday, the legislators through their lawyers led by Mr Caleb Alaka argued that there is a need to determine whether the protection of the 15 State witnesses as decided by the court last week contravenes the Constitution.
Mr Alaka argued that it is 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.
Last week, Justice Alice Khaukha allowed the non-disclosure of the state witnesses, citing safety reasons. .
But Mr Alaka argued that his clients want the Constitutional Court to determine whether the witness protection in such a manner does not contravene Article 44,which provides that any person appearing before any administrative official has a right to be treated justly and fairly and shall have a right to apply to court in respect of any administrative decision against him/her.
On combining of case files
The lawyers also want the Constitutional Court to interprete whether the act of proceedings based on similar charges with similar facts in different courts of Masaka and ICD in Kampala does not cause double jeopardy and miscarriage of justice.
Mr Alaka also argued that the rules of the ICD are new and that they have never been tested by the Constitutional Court or Supreme Court, especially on matters touching rights of the accused persons and specifically rule 22 of the ICD, which talks about the witness protection and disclosure of their identities.
However, the prosecution led by Mr Richard Birivumbuka and Mr Joseph Kyomuhendo told the court that the decision made by the court on witness protection does not in any way require a constitutional interpretation.
They said witness prosecution did not bar full disclosure as they have already disclosed some exhibits and statements which the state intends to rely on.
“This application has been brought in bad faith as it does not demonstrate any kind of violations of the articles talked about,” Mr Kyomuhendo submitted.
Justice Khaukha has set October 13 to deliver her ruling on the matter.
