Prime
Ugandans now to choose between bail, jail or Joel
Author: Asuman Bisiika. PHOTO/FILE
What you need to know:
- The truth is that many Ugandans would not support bail for murder or rape suspects.
A long time ago, I was approached by someone claiming to represent the interests of the government of Uganda. They invited me to be a witness in the treason case against a certain Col Kashillingi of the National Resistance Army (NRA) or Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF. I declined the invite.
Now, as far away from Kampala as I have chosen to write this column, I hear Ugandans debating bail (or the denial of it). I hear Mr Museveni wants people accused of (charged with) capital offences such as murder, treason, rape and such other crimes to be denied bail.
A friend calling from Kampala told me that the level of mobilisation Mr Museveni has rallied on the matter points to something sinister in the offing. I ribbed my friend: the way you are speaking about Museveni’s seriousness about bail issue, you make it sound as if Ugandans have now been reduced to choosing between jail or bail or Joel?
He laughed and shot back: I pity Museveni supporters like you. Now you have to choose between your Museveni and the Republic of Uganda.
In normal circumstances, one would ask: what socio-cultural or economic ill would denial of bail cure? What level of state fragility warrants the government (or for that matter Mr Museveni) to act in such a manner that betrays a sense or state of insecurity? What universal value or policy projection does the denial (or offer) of bail carry? What is Mr Museveni’s recompense for the effort and energy I hear he is putting in this policy call?
Yet I support the denial of bail for murder, rape and treason suspects. The only point of departure I have with Mr Museveni (or what I assume are his proposals) is that such a denial (or offer) of bail should be left for the honourable court to decide.
Dear reader, there once was a law professor (who was also an attorney general of Zamunda). In the heat (or hit) of the trial of a political leader, the learned law professor said: ‘Whereas the law provided for the assumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court, the innocence of Dr Kizza Besigye was in doubt (even before trial)’.
The truth is that many Ugandans would not support bail for murder or rape suspects. But Ugandans don’t want the state to be the lead agency in this matter. Why? Because it is not uncommon for the interests of the state to be at variance with the interests of the people or individuals. In Lhukonzo: the interests of the state are more often selfish than representative of the popular interests.
***********
On September 22, 1972, some persons suspected to be state actors are said to have abducted (and are likely to have killed) Chief Justice Ben Kiwanuka. The story line was that those state actors abducted and killed the Chief Justice over what were believed to be disagreements on the direction and process of justice in the country.
The death of Kiwanuka has always inspired the Judiciary in Uganda. What an irony then that in the same month Ben Kiwanuka is celebrated, bail (one of the bases for the universal principle of presumption of innocence…) is being debated in a manner that reflects a state of siege and resistance!
Kiwanuka’s martyrdom set the bar very high for both the political leadership and the judiciary. For what can the political or military leadership do to the Judiciary that is more outrageous than the killing of the chief justice? Conversely, what can the leadership of the Judiciary do that is more courageous than Kiwanuka’s actions that earned him martyrdom?
Mr Bisiika is the executive editor of the East African Flagpost. [email protected]
