Mugera v Uganda (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 2 of 2023)
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
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.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
Held that although the applicant demonstrated a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction, the three sureties presented were not substantial. The sureties gravely contradicted the applicant on his place of residence, did not know him well enough, and had only business relationships rather than familial or close ties sufficient to compel his attendance. Given the gravity of the offences charged (terrorism and murder) and the absence of substantial sureties, the likelihood of absconding was high. Application for bail dismissed.
Outcome
Applicant to remain on remand pending trial
Facts
The applicant was charged with terrorism contrary to section 7(1)(A) and (2)(B) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 and murder contrary to sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. He had been on remand at Luzira Upper Government Prison since September 2021 (eighteen months at the time of the application). He was committed for trial to the International Crimes Division of the High Court on 12 November 2021. Pre-trial conferencing had been ongoing since July 2022 and was not yet concluded. The applicant applied for bail arguing he had fixed places of abode at Kiyembe Zone, Kibuye II Parish, Makindye Division, Kampala and at Kyotera District where he operated a business, and that he had three sureties willing to guarantee his attendance. The state opposed, contending he lacked a fixed place of abode, the sureties were not substantial, the offences were grave involving personal violence, and he would abscond and interfere with witnesses.
Issues
- Whether the applicant has exceptional circumstances justifying his release on bail.
- Whether the applicant will abscond if granted bail, having regard to whether he has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of the court.
- Whether the applicant has produced sound and substantial sureties within the jurisdiction to undertake that he shall comply with the conditions of bail.
Orders
- Application for bail dismissed.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (12)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 23(6)(a)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 28(3)(a)
- Trial on Indictments Act Cap. 23 s.14
- Trial on Indictments Act Cap. 23 s.15
- Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Application) Rules Rule 2
- Judicature (Criminal Procedure) (Application) Rules Rule 4
- Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 s.7(1)(A)
- Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 s.7(2)(B)
- Penal Code Act Cap. 120 s.188
- Penal Code Act Cap. 120 s.189
- Constitutional (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 Paragraph 13
- Constitutional (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions 2022 Paragraph 15
Cases cited (8)
- Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2009)
- Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
- Abindi Ronald and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 20 of 2016)
- Tumwirukirire v Uganda (HCT-05-CV-MA-94 of 2019)
- Dr. Ismail Kalule v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 1 of 2018)
- Tumusiime David v Uganda (HCT-MA-29-2019)
- Kapisi Fred and Another v Uganda (HCT-05-CMA-108-2019)
- Tigawalana Bakali Ikoba v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2003)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.