By Kakwenza Rukirabashaija
On November 7, 2024, through my attorney, Mr. Eron Kiiza—now contesting the Uganda Law Society presidency—I filed Application No. 0441 of 2024 before the High Court Criminal Division.
The relief I sought is clear, lawful, and long overdue: (i) release of my Ugandan passport unlawfully withheld by the state since 2022, (ii) discharge of my four sureties, (iii) refund of my bail bond, and (iv) termination of criminal proceedings brought under a provision that the Constitutional Court has already struck down as unconstitutional.
Both parties—my counsel and the Attorney General—filed submissions on February 6, 2025. Shortly thereafter, my lawyer wrote to the registrar requesting a hearing date.
Months later, the file has never been fixed for hearing. No explanation. No action. No justice.
This is not an innocent administrative delay; it is an abdication of judicial duty. The registrar’s persistent inaction, despite repeated reminders, amounts to a reckless denial of justice.
The Supreme Court has been unequivocal that justice delayed is justice denied—see Attorney General v. Paul K. Ssemogerere & Others, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2002. Article 28(1) of the Constitution guarantees a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
What is “reasonable” if not within a few months—especially for an application that involves no factual dispute and rests entirely on an already-resolved question of constitutional law?
The provision under which I was charged—section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act—was declared unconstitutional in Karamagi Andrew & Robert Shaka v. Attorney General, Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2011. When the Constitutional Court nullifies a law, its effect is void ab initio.
Uganda’s jurisprudence is undisputed on this point (see Attorney General v. Salvatori Abuki, Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 1998). Yet the Buganda Road Magistrates Court and now the High Court maintain proceedings against me on the basis of a dead law.
This is not merely absurd—it is a violation of Article 2(2) of the Constitution, which affirms the supremacy of the Constitution and commands that inconsistent laws are void.
International law reinforces this violation. Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Uganda has been state party since November 14, 1995, guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay.
The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 7(1)(d), requires trial within a reasonable time. Uganda cannot continue to brand courts as temples of justice while simultaneously breaching its own Constitution and international obligations with such brazenness.
The registrar’s conduct contradicts the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002) and the UN Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985)—particularly principles on diligence, competence, and impartiality.
Courts should not be mausoleums where citizens’ files rot while their freedoms are quietly extinguished. The refusal to schedule my application has become silent complicity in state repression.
I also recall Article 44(c) of the Constitution: the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is non-derogable.
Judicial procrastination, when used to sustain a politically-motivated prosecution under an annulled law, becomes its own form of cruelty. It imposes perpetual uncertainty, travel restrictions, and financial strain—shackles without bars.
Application No. 0441 of 2024 exposes a judiciary straying from its constitutional mandate. This is not delay; it is denial. It is not incompetence; it is complicity. The High Court, through calculated inaction, is enabling illegality.
Yet Uganda is bound—by its Constitution, by the ICCPR, and by the African Charter—to provide timely, impartial, and effective adjudication. Anything less is a betrayal of the people’s sovereignty.
