Naphatal Were and Another v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Application No. 42 of 2012; Consolidated Constitutional Application No. 52 of 2012)
Naphatal Were and Another v Attorney General (Consolidated Constitutional Application No. 42 of 2012; Consolidated Constitutional Application No. 52 of 2012) [2021] UGCC 9 (9 March 2021)
The Constitutional Court found that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) acted within the constitutional mandate and exercised prosecutorial discretion properly in charging and prosecuting the petitioners. The Court held that there was no credible evidence to show that the DPP acted under the direction or control of MTN or any other person, nor that the DPP failed to consider all relevant material, including the roles of MTN staff. The Court emphasized that the DPP has wide discretion to determine whom to prosecute based on available evidence and is not required to charge all potential s…
Source excerpt
- Prosecutorial Discretion
- Right To Fair Hearing
- Equality Before Law
- Selective Prosecution