THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT KAMPALA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 004 OF 2011
BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE LAMECK N. MUKASA
1. Mr. Caleb Alaka
2. Mr. Samuel Muyizi Mulindwa Counsel for the Applicant
3. Mr. Francis Katabalwa
4. Mr. Anguzu Lino (Senior State Attorney)
5. Mr. Muwonge Emmanuel (Senior State Attorney)
Ms. Rose Akullo Obote
The particulars of offence were that:
The Applicant was remanded to Luzira Prison and now brings this application under Article 23(6)(a), 28(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda and section 14 and 15 of the Trial Indictment Act seeking to be released on bail pending trial. The grounds or her application, as submitted upon by learned counsel, Mr. Caleb Alaka, are that:-
2. The applicant is presumed innocent under Article 28 of the Constitution.
3. The applicant has no previous criminal record.
4. The Applicant has a fixed place of aboard at the Mulago Hospital, Nurses Quarters at Mawanda Road, Kawempe Division, Kampala District within the jurisdiction of this court.
5. The applicant shall not interfere with witnesses if released on bail.
6. The applicant shall abide by any and all the bail conditions imposed upon her by this Honorable Court.
7. The Applicant has substantial sureties.
ii) Hon. Erias Lukwago – Resident of Kangugube zone Central Division, Kampala District, Lawyer, Member of Parliament for Central Division and Lord Mayor elect for the City of Kampala.
iii) Hon. Mathias Nsubuga, Resident of Rubaga Division, Kampala District and Secretary General of the Democratic Party.
iv) Hon. Nambooze Betty – resident of Nakabago Village Mukono Town council, Member of Parliament for Mukono North, MP elect for Mukono Municipality and Member of the Democratic Party.
v) Mr. Fred Muganga – Resident of Post Office – Sub-ward, Division A, Entebbe Municipality. A Lithographer by profession, working with FM Quick Print and Stationers Plot 16/18 Kampala Road, Entebbe Municipality and elder brother of the Applicant.
vi) And Mr. Lutaya Henry Grace – Resident of Mutundwe, Rubaga Division and elder brother of the Applicant.
Mr. Alaka submitted that the Applicant was presumed innocent and entitled to her liberty. He cited Hct_Crim Misc. Appl No. 228 and 229 of 2005, Col (Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye vs. Uganda where Hon. Justice James Ogoola –PJ (as he then was) states:-
In our Constitutional matrix here in Uganda, Liberty looms large. The liberty of one, is the liberty of all. The liberty of any one must never been curtailed lightly, wantonly or even worse, arbitrarily. Article 23, Clause (6) of the Constitution grants a person who is deprived of his or her liberty, the right to apply to a competent Court of law for the grant of bail. The courts from which such a person seeks refuge and solace should be extremely wary of sending such a person away empty handed – except of course for good cause. Ours are courts of justice. Ours is the duty and privilege to jealously and courageously guard and defend the rights of all, in spite of all”.
Counsel emphasized that the overriding considerations are:-
- whether the Applicant will interfere with the course of justice; that is interfere with the witnesses, the evidence and the investigation.
The State filed an affidavit in reply deponed to by Patrick Wacha, a Detective Superintendent of Police attached to the Criminal Investigation Directorate Headquarters, the Officer in Charge of Anti- terrorism Unit at CID Headquarters and the investigating Officer in the case. He therein avers that his investigations established that the Applicant committed the offence in several countries including Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania. That the investigations are not yet complete and are still continuing. That five of the individuals jointly charged with the Applicant are still at large and have not been arrested.
He strongly believes that the Applicant will interfere with the investigations if released at this stage.
Mr. Mwonge Emmanuel, Senior State Attorney, submitted that the four Members of Parliament provided as sureties have no nexus or bond with the Applicant, save being members of the same Party, that is the Democratic Party. In his view these four were not substantial sureties.
Article 23(1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty except in any of the cases provided therein. Then in 6(a) it provides:
For now the applicant is presumed innocent, thus the exercise of her Constitutional right to apply to be released on bail.
Article 23(6)(a) provides this court with the discretion to grant bail on such conditions as it may consider reasonable. The provisions of this Article have been explained by the Constitutional Court in Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005 – Uganda (DPP) vs. Col (Rtd) Dr, Kiiza Besigye where their Lordships stated:
Bail could also be refused according to the status of the offence and the stage in the proceedings. The extent to which evidence pointing to proof of guilt or innocence of the applicant would seem to be one of degree in the circumstances of a particular case. There is no rule that such evidence cannot be placed before court. An investigating officer giving evidence of arrest often be to connect the applicant sufficiently with the offence, as much as to claim that he or she may fail to surrender for trial.
See: Article 126(1) of the Constitution.
The Applicant is charged with a serious offence of aiding and abetting terrorism which threatens national security. It affects the safety of the people and/or their property. There should be peace and the courts of law, like any other organ of Government, have a duty to ensure that national and international security is preserved. However, this greater public interest must be balanced with the fundamental rights of the citizens.
The Applicant is not before this court on trial but for court to consider whether there is justification to interfere with her right to liberty pending her trial. For now she still enjoys the Constitutional presumption of innocence. The rational of granting bail is that instead of keeping a suspect under the harsh conditions of remand who might in the end be found innocent, she should not be incarcerated if the court is satisfied that he/she will turn up to answer the charges. When granting bail the court must be satisfied that in the circumstances of the particular case, the Accused person will turn up to answer the charge at the trial and whenever he/she is required by Court. In other words that he/she is not likely to abscond. Further court must be conscious of the likelihood of the accused person to interfere with the investigations, witnesses and/or evidence.
I have carefully considered the law and the authorities cited to me and the submissions of counsel for both the Applicant and the State. I have consciously considered the gravity or seriousness of the offence the applicant is charged with and the severity of the attendant sentence on conviction. I have also considered the effects of the offence charged on national security and society. However equally importantly, I have also considered the applicant’s fundamental right to liberty. I have also considered the Applicant’s mitigating factors.
The Applicant is a Ugandan who hails from Kibinge Village, Bukomansimbi District. She works with the School of Nursing, Mulago with a permanent place of abode at the Mulago Hospital Nurses Quarters at Mawanda Road, Kawempe Division, Kampala District within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court.
The Applicant has no disclosed previous criminal record. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit in reply it is averred that the Applicant is married to one of the Co-accused, one Lawrence Kiwanuka Nsereko who is stated to be still at large and resident in the United States of America. The deponent did not indicate whether his investigations had established that the Applicant was in contact with him or any of the other co-accused persons, who are still at large, prior to her arrest. In Panji vs R (1973) EA 282 court sounded a warning against simply acting on allegations, fears or suspicions to deny an Applicant bail.
The Applicant has presented six sureties. Four of them are Members of Parliament, two of whom are lawyers. They are all substantial persons with well known and apparent interest to national security. However I agree with Mr. Muwonge, Senior State Attorney, that they have no nexus or bond with the Applicant. A Surety must be a person capable to ensure that the Applicant turns up to stand trial as and when required by court. In my view being members of the same Political Party with the Applicant is not enough. Further with Sureties of such high Political stand it might be found difficult to enforce the bond against them.
However the Applicant also presented two of her elder brothers as sureties. I find them, and counsel for the State was in agreement, the best sureties to ensure that the applicant turns up for trail.
Considering all the above, the Applicant is granted bail on the following conditions:-
2. Mr. Fred Muganga and Mr. Lutaya Henry Grace are approved as the sureties and each of them will execute a bond in the sum of shs. 10,000,000/= (shilling ten million only ( not cash.)
3. The Applicant is to surrender her Passport to the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Division, High Court, until directed otherwise by this Honorable Court. In the premises the Criminal Investigations Directorate or any other Department of the Police Force which might be in the custody of the Applicant’s Passport is hereby directed to handover the Passport to the said Deputy Registrar.
4. The Applicant is not to move out of the local limits of the City of Kampala without the written permission of the Deputy Registrar, Criminal Division first had and obtained.
5. The Applicant is to report to the Chief Magistrate Court, Buganda Road Court on the 18th day of April 2011 and thereafter as shall be directed by the said Court from time to time until ordered otherwise.
6. The Applicant is to report once a month, on the first Friday of every month effective from 6th May 2011 to the Criminal Investigations Directorate Headquarters until ordered otherwise by this Honorable court.
LAMECK N. MUKASA