Rukanyangira and 2 Others v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application 58 of 1993) [1994] UGHC 75 (11 March 1994)

THE REPUBLIC OF UGLIDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UG. ID. AT KAMP. LA (MISC. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 58/93)

A1: CHRISTOPHER RUKANYANGIRA() APPLICANTS $\Lambda$ 2: BAYANGA $\cdots$ EMMANUEL MUBIRU ........() $A3:$

VERSUS

UGANDA: PROSECUTOR

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Ag. Justice E. S. Lugayizi

RULING:

This is an application for ball. It was made jointly by the three Applicants who were represented by their advocate Mr. Steven Nsubuga.

The background to this application is briefly as follows: The three Applicants herein were charged with the offence of murder and remanded in custody in 1986. They were released on bail on 18th January, 1988. Subsequently, because they defaulted, their bail was cancelled by the High Court and were remanded in custody once again. This took place on 16th November, 1992.

The Applicants' joint application for bail was made before me on 25th February, 1994, and their counsel brought it under section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree. It was supported by their respective affidavits in which they each admitted having been remanded a second time as pointed out above.

Counsel for the Applicants argued that his clients had shown that exceptional circumstances existed which entitled them to bail. This was so, especially since they had been on remand for fifteen months without having been conmitted to The High Court for trial.

$.../2...$

Baptist Chemba and Mr. John B. Muturuza.

Mr. John Baptist Chumba is a building technician. works in Kampala and resides at Wasubi which is two miles from Kampala. In addition, he has a home in Mawokota which is near the Applicants' homes. He promised to ensure their return to court to answer the charges herein if they were released on bail.

Mr. John B. Muturuza is an Accountant who works in Kampala. He has a home in Mawokota which is near the Applicants' homes. He also promised to ensure their return to answer the charges herein should they be released on bail.

On the otherhand, Mr. Semalemba, counsel for the State opposed bail and contended that since the Applicants had a previous record of having jumped bail, they were likely not to honour this bail if court granted it to them.

Secondly, Mr. Semalemba also argued that since the Stat was about to commit the Applicants to the High Court for trial it was pointless to release them now on bail.

I had opportunity to rensider the submissions of both counsel and I do agree with counsel for the Applicants that the Applicants herein have fulfilled the requirements of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section $14\text{\AA}$ of the Trial on Indictments Decree (i.e. they have been on remand for fifteen months). However, before court finally releases them on bail, it has to be satisfied that they will not abscond. (Please see paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 14A of the Trial on Indictments Decree).

I believe the two sureties reforred to above were produced in an effort to assure that the Applicants would return to court to answer the charge herein if released on bail. However, these sureties are only two against three

$.../3...$

accused persons.. In that respect, I feel that their number. is low in view the situation at hand. It should not be forgotten that the Applicants were charged with a very serious offence, I therefore honestly think, that to put them under the care of only two sureties on bail, would be like fishing in troubled waters. This is particularly so, when such sureties would most likely not be exercising their\* responsibilities over the Applicants on a regular basis. For, while the sureties would be living in Kampala where they work, the Applicants if released on bail would live in Mawokota which !is probably 35-40 miles away from Kampala.

Lastly, the fact that the App? icants have a previous record of having jumped bail in this case, docs not also help 'matters. Much as they insisted through their counsel that their previous default was caused by the court below (when it misled them that they wore no longer required to attend court since their file was misplaced on lost) it is on record that when they were re—arrested and brought to court on 16th November, 1992,they all admitted having jumped bail. If, as they were trying to say herein, they had a good reason for having jumped bail, why didn't they put it up right from the very beginning when they were re-arrested and taken to court? With the above in mind, I feel unable to grant the Applicants bail. Accordinglytheir application for bail is hereby dismissed.

Be that as it may, I hope that the Director of Public Prosecutions will honour his word (through his representative Mr. Semalomba) and commit the accused persons to the High Court for trial as soon as possible.

> /^s- , . E. S. Lugayi.zi'. , ,J U.. D. G E. 11/3/1994

iiead J>eforo: ; Appellants, Mr. Kamyuka C/Clerk .