The General Court Martial in Makindye has denied bail to the former commander of the Professional Standards Unit Senior Commissioner of Police Joel Aguma.
Aguma who is accused together with eight others including fellow senior officers of kidnapping Lt.Joel Mutabazi, a former bodyguard to President Paul Kagame through his lawyers led by Caleb Alaka asked court to release him on bail because it is his constitutional right.
However on Monday morning, the court chairman Lt.Gen.Andrew Guti in his ruling said the three sureties for Aguma were not substantial.
“AIGP Col Ndahura Atwoki never requested for permission from the Inspector General of Police as required by law before standing surety for the applicant, “Lt.Gen.Guti said.
In explanation, the court chairman said that according to the police standing orders, AIGP Ndahura, who is the director in charge of Crime Intelligence is bound to request for permission from the IGP and this should be put in writing but said this was never done.
“Court has never seen any document showing that Ndahura was allowed by the IGP and presume he was never allowed.”
Lt.Gen. Guti said the other two sureties were civilians who could not stand surety for such a high ranking officer in the Uganda Police Force.
Court also in its ruling said that Aguma was capable of influencing with witnesses and interfere with investigations due to his superiority in the police force.
He explained that the fact of bringing Col.Ndahura, an Assistant Inspector General of Police who is his(Aguma) superior was evidence enough to show he can influence everyone in the force.
“Fellow police officers are potential witnesses and he might influence them if released in bail.”
“We dismiss his bail application and ask the prosecution to speed up the investigations so that trial begins,”Lt.Gen. Guti said.
Prosecution alleges that on 25th October 2013 at Kammengo, in Mpigi district along Masaka road, the accused using a pistol and grenades abducted Lt. Joel Mutabaazi and Jackson Kalemera whom they took back to Rwanda without their knowledge contrary to the Penal Code Act.
Prosecution alleges that the accused are people subject to military law for using weapons(pistol and grenade) which are ordinarily a monopoly of the army according to the UPDF Act 2005.