Court dismisses Jinja RDC Eric Sakwa’s case challenging interdiction from office
The High Court in Jinja has dismissed a case in which Jinja RDC, Eric Sakwa was challenging his interdiction from office.
Sakwa was last month interdicted by Hajj Yunus Kirunda, the secretary to the Office of the President to allow proper investigations into manslaughter charge against him before the Jinja court.
Keep Reading
- > Parliament questions government's Shs1.1 trillion supplementary budget
- > Salam TV elevates coverage of 11th international Quran competition 2024 in Rwanda
- > Electoral Commission budget expected to rise
- > PPDA asks districts to use use alternative procurement processes to avoid returning money to consolidated fund
He later challenged the interdiction through the High Court.
On Tuesday, Justice Jeanne Rwakakooko ruled that as a public servant, he liable to interdiction pending disposal of charges against him.
“I agree with the submission of counsel for the respondents on this and find that the applicant, though appointed by the president in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, is a public officer and bound by the Public Service Standing Orders,” Justice Rwakakooko said.
Reasoning with the Attorney General, the judge quoted article 203(1) of the Constitution that provides that there shall be, for each District, a Resident District Commissioner who shall be appointed by the President.
The judge also quoted section 70(1) of the Local Governments Act that provides that there shall be, for each District, a Resident District Commissioner who shall be a senior civil servant appointed by the President.
“Section 71(3) of the Local Governments Act provides that the expenses of the office of the Resident District Commissioner, including salaries, allowances and pensions, shall be charged on the Consolidated Fund,” Justice Rwakakooko ruled.
The judge therefore ruled that it does not need one to be heard before interdiction.
“I agree with the above position as laid out in the above case, that the decision to interdict is not subject to the right to be heard first since interdiction is but a first step towards disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, there was no need for the Applicant to be heard before he was interdicted.”
“For reasons I have given in the ruling, this application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents,” Justice Rwakakooko noted.
