Wakilii

Uganda v Baijusa Bruhan Kalyango alias Masiga (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0003-2018)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 9 · 2025 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application by the prosecution for criminal proceedings to continue in the absence of the accused who jumped bail
Decision
Trial to proceed in absentia against the accused who jumped bail

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

The High Court held that where an accused person of sound mind, adequately notified of his trial, jumps bail and deliberately absconds, he waives his right to be present at trial. The court granted the prosecution's application for trial in absentia, finding that the accused's conduct made continuation of proceedings in his presence impractical under Article 28(5) of the Constitution. The court considered the seriousness of the charges, public interest, the rights of co-accused to a prompt trial, and the accused's voluntary relinquishment of his right to be present.

Outcome

Trial to proceed in absentia against the accused who jumped bail

Facts

The Respondent was jointly charged with seven others on counts of terrorism, murder, aggravated robbery, and belonging to a terrorist organisation arising from the 2016 murder of AIGP Andrew Felix Kaweesi. He was granted bail on 6 August 2019 on condition that he report to court monthly and attend trial. After the pre-trial stage, he absconded. Criminal summonses were issued and served at his known residences without success. On 26 March 2025, the court issued further summonses published in New Vision newspaper and broadcast on Sanyu FM and Capital FM radio on 16 April 2025. Neither the Respondent nor his sureties appeared. Investigations revealed he had sold his father's house at Luzira and never returned to his Nabweru residence after arrest. His previous counsel withdrew on 28 March 2025, and the court appointed new counsel on state brief.

Issues

  1. Whether criminal proceedings in High Court Criminal Case No. HCT-00-ICD-SC-0003-2018 can lawfully continue in the Respondent's absence after he jumped bail.

Orders

  • Application granted.
  • Criminal proceedings against the Respondent in High Court International Crimes Division criminal case HCT-00-ICD-SC-0003-2018 shall proceed in his absence.

Rules and key headnotes

Trial in Absentia — Waiver of Right to be Present — Accused Jumping Bail
An accused person of full age and sound mind who is adequately notified of his trial and deliberately chooses to abscond by jumping bail waives his right to be present at trial, and the trial may proceed in his absence.
Fair Hearing Rights — Article 28(5) — Trial in Absence of Accused
Under Article 28(5) of the Constitution, a trial may proceed in the absence of an accused person without his consent where the accused so conducts himself as to render the continuance of proceedings in his presence impractical and the court makes an order for trial to proceed in his absence.
Trial in Absentia — Judicial Discretion — Factors to Consider
In deciding whether to proceed with trial in the absence of an accused, the court must exercise discretion cautiously, considering: the nature and circumstances of the accused's absence and whether it was deliberate and voluntary; the seriousness of the offence; the public interest and interests of victims and witnesses in timely trial; the effect of delay on witnesses' memories; and where there are co-accused who have not absconded, the undesirability of separate trials and the right of present accused to a prompt and fair trial.
Bail — Breach of Bail Conditions — Consequences
Where an accused person granted bail on condition of monthly reporting and attendance at trial sells his property, leaves his known residences without trace, and fails to appear despite criminal summonses served and published, such conduct constitutes jumping bail and demonstrates deliberate absconding.
Trial in Absentia — Public Policy — Manipulation of Justice System
It is against public policy to allow an accused person who has chosen to abscond and jump bail to frustrate court proceedings. The criminal justice system should not be susceptible to manipulation or abuse by accused persons voluntarily absenting themselves from trial.
Right to Legal Representation — State Brief — Trial in Absentia
Where an accused person's counsel withdraws and the court appoints competent counsel on state brief to represent the accused in accordance with Article 28(3)(e) of the Constitution, the accused's right to legal representation is satisfied even where trial proceeds in his absence after he has absconded.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (5)

  • R v Hayward [2001] WLR 125
  • Uganda v Hon Herbert Kabafuruzi (UCC No. 7 of 2017)
  • Uganda v Gulindwa Paul and Tumusiime (HCT-00-AC-CNI-0005-2015)
  • Regina v Jones [1972] 1 WLR 887
  • R v Abrahams (1985) 21 WLR 343

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Baijusa Bruhan Kalyango alias Masiga (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0003-2018) [2025] UGHCICD 9 (10 July 2025)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.