Rogue and vagabond are no longer offences in Uganda, court rules
The Constitutional Court in Kampala has nullified sections 168(1) (c) and 168(1) d) of the Penal Code Act which criminalized being rogue and vagabond.
In 2018, lawyer Francis Tumwesigye Ateenyi dragged the Attorney General to court noting that the two sections were vague and literally allowed police to arbitrarily arrest someone without any offence committed but on suspicion of being idle and disorderly.
Keep Reading
On Friday, five justices of the Court of Appeal including Fredrick Egonda-Ntende, Elizabeth Musoke, Christopher Madrama, Monica Mugenyi, and Christopher Gashirabake ruled that the two sections contravene the Constitution which emphasizes the freedom to movement to any place.
“.. the impugned offences clearly contravene the right to freely move throughout Uganda and justification of such contravention as saved by article 43 of the constitution would have to be justified by the respondent. It is hereby held that sections 168(1) (c) and 168(1) d) of the Penal Code Act are void for inconsistency with the constitution,” Justice Egonda-Ntende said in the lead judgment.
The justices said the two offences cannot be allowed to stand since they are vague , ambiguous and too broad that they attempt to deprive individuals of their personal liberty.
They said that the Constitution in article 44 ( c) emphasizes the rule of innocence until proven guilty but they explained that the offences of being rogue and vagabond violate this right.
“Presumption of innocence imposes upon the state or the prosecution the burden of proving a criminal case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and this burden doesn’t shift . Neither is it derrogable. It is clear that if an accused fails to discharge the burden now imposed upon him or her by this provision, he would be found guilty of the offence. These provisions fail constitutional muster by reversing the burden of proof and deeming that an offence has been committed contrary to presumption of innocence protected under article 28(3) (a) of the Constitution.”
The justices therefore ruled that the two provisions of the Penal Code Act are unconstitutional and consequently null and void.
