The Constitutional Court has thrown out a petition that contested the legality of Sections 1 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act, which permit Magistrates’ Courts to handle committal proceedings for capital offences before they are referred to the High Court.
The petition, filed by Asingwire Alex Mukasa, argued that allowing such proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts—despite their lack of authority to grant bail in capital offences—violates constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial and the presumption of innocence.
He also challenged Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3), which outline bail conditions for offences triable only by the High Court, claiming they breach Articles 2, 23(6)(b) and (c) of the Constitution and effectively alter it by adding restrictions not originally intended.
In response, the Attorney General opposed the petition, noting that the issues raised had already been resolved in earlier court decisions, and reopening them would go against judicial practice.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Esta Nambayo agreed with the Attorney General. She noted that the constitutionality of Section 1 was upheld in the Barihaihi v. Attorney General case, while Section 16 was already declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in a case brought by the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative.
Nambayo stressed that the petitioner had provided no valid reason for the court to overturn its previous decision, affirming that the Barihaihi ruling remains valid law.
Regarding Section 16, the Court explained that if Magistrates’ Courts are still applying it despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the remedy lies in filing an enforcement application under Article 50 of the Constitution in the High Court, which has jurisdiction over such matters.
The Court also rejected claims that the bail guidelines for High Court cases are unconstitutional, clarifying that the High Court’s exclusive authority to grant bail in capital cases does not amount to a ban on bail—it simply requires that applications be made to the High Court, which has discretion to grant or deny them.
All four other justices—Irene Mulyagonja, Byaruhanga Jessy Rugyema, Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, and John Mike Musisi—concurred with Nambayo’s ruling.
Email:homelandnewspaper@gmail.com
