Barihaihi & Anor. v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 23 of 2011)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, holding that section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act is a procedural provision that does not oust the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction under Article 139; unlimited jurisdiction must still be exercised in accordance with procedural law. Committal proceedings are a pre-trial mechanism that promotes, rather than infringes, the right to a fair and speedy hearing, the right to be informed of the charge, and the right to bail, all of which accrue independently of committal. The right to state-funded legal representation for capital offences accrues on being charged and is independent of committal proceedings. The petitioners were entitled to none of the declarations sought.

Outcome

Petition dismissed; petitioners entitled to none of the declarations or remedies sought

Facts

The petitioners were arrested in 2002 and charged with treason at Buganda Road Court. They were remanded for over a year and granted bail in 2013, answering bail before the magistrate's court for about nine years. The magistrate's court repeatedly stated it had no jurisdiction to discontinue, try, or order committal of the case to the High Court. The petitioners eventually obtained judicial review in the High Court, which quashed the proceedings and awarded them damages. Aggrieved by the system that produced this delay, they petitioned the Constitutional Court for a declaration that section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act, which bars the High Court from trying a criminal case unless the accused has been committed for trial, is inconsistent with several constitutional provisions guaranteeing a fair and speedy trial, the right to be informed of charges, legal representation, and bail.

Issues

1. Whether section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act ousts the unlimited original jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 139 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the requirement of committal proceedings infringes the right to a fair and speedy hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution.
3. Whether committal proceedings infringe the accused's right to be informed of the charge under Article 23(3) and Article 28(3) of the Constitution.
4. Whether the absence of legal representation during committal proceedings renders them unconstitutional under Article 28(3)(e).
5. Whether section 1 of the Trial on Indictments Act violates the accused's right to apply for bail under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution.

Orders

• The petition is dismissed.
• No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (11)

• Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23 s.1
• Constitution of Uganda art.28(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.28(3)(b)
• Constitution of Uganda art.28(3)(c)
• Constitution of Uganda art.28(3)(e)
• Constitution of Uganda art.23(3)
• Constitution of Uganda art.23(6)(a)
• Constitution of Uganda art.139
• Constitution of Uganda art.79(1)
• Constitution of Uganda art.44
• Magistrates Courts Act s.168

Cases cited (3)

• Zambia National Holdings Limited and United National Independence Party (UNIP) V. The Attorney-General S.C.Z. JUDGMENT NO. 3 OF 1994
• Soon Yeon Kong Kim & Anor v Attorney General (Constitutional Reference No. 6 of 2007)
• Attorney General v Tumushabe (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2005)

Cases citing this judgment (2)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Asingwire Alex Mukasa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 44 of 2022)
• Uganda v Kayemba (Criminal Session 312 of 2020)

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.