Jailed former Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, Geoffrey Kazinda, has mounted a robust legal challenge, questioning the competency of the Attorney General’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, Kazinda argues that the Attorney General’s appeal, stemming from a Constitutional Court landmark ruling in his favour, is “incompetent” and that the Supreme Court was misled by officers from the Attorney General’s chambers to issue orders staying the execution of the Constitutional Court’s directives.
hE contends that the Attorney General failed to file the appeal within the 60-day period prescribed by law.
“The rules of the Supreme Court require the respondent to withdraw an appeal filed out of time. This is why I raised a preliminary objection against the grant of a stay of execution of orders issued by the Constitutional Court,” he stated.
He added that while awaiting the court’s decision on his application to stay the execution of the Constitutional Court orders, he was served with a Memorandum of Appeal and a record of proceedings that he claims were filed illegally.
“I also learnt that the judgment and record of proceedings of the Constitutional Court were available for collection by the respondent more than a month before the hearing commenced,” Kazinda said.
He cited a letter from the Registrar of the Court of Appeal notifying the respondent that the proceedings were ready for collection.
Kazinda further explained that, despite waiting for the Supreme Court’s ruling on the appeal’s competency, he was surprised to receive a decision staying the Constitutional Court orders.
He emphasized that he never received a fresh Memorandum or record of appeal to confirm whether the Attorney General had complied with the court’s directive to file the appeal without delay.
“I know that the actions of the respondent in filing Appeal No. 005 of 2020, when the determination of whether an appeal exists is still pending before a coram of seven justices, cannot override the orders of the full bench of the court,” Kazinda argued.
The legal tussle comes as a seven-justice bench of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Professor Lilian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza, directed both parties to address the court on key legal issues, including the participation of Justice Ezekiel Muhanguzi.
Justice Muhanguzi, who had handled the petition at the Constitutional Court, did not sign the final judgment after being promoted to the Supreme Court, although he participated in the hearing and drafting of the judgment.
Kazinda also recounted a long history of legal battles, noting that he has been incarcerated since 2012 and has faced repeated prosecutions by the Attorney General’s agents at the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court.
“I have already completed serving the sentences imposed on me,” he stated.
