Lawyers representing State Minister for Karamoja, Agnes Nandutu have asked the Anti-Corruption division of the High Court in Kampala to halt her trial pending the determination of a petition filed in the Constitutional Court challenging what they term as a vague and ambiguous law in which she was charged over the Karamoja iron sheets saga.
Nandutu was charged with dealing with suspect property contrary to section 21a(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009.
On Thursday, when the case came up for hearing, Nandutu’s lawyers led by Caleb Alaka told court that they seek to file an application in the court to have her trial halted awaiting an interpretation by Constitutional Court about the law in which she was charged.
Alaka told court that section 21a(1) of the Anti-Corruption Act 2009 in which Nandutu was charged is vague , broad and ambiguous .
He explained that the basis of the amendment of the Anti Corruption Act in 2015 was to create a provision for the confiscation of property of those convicted under the law.
The lawyer told court that for one to be charged with the offence of dealing with suspect property, there should have been someone already convicted of corruption under the Anti-Corruption act awaiting to have their property confiscated but, in the process, another person conceals the said property before the confiscation happens.
According to the lawyers, this is not the case with Nandutu.
“It is unfair and unconstitutional for a person to go through a trial when provisions of the law under which that person has been charged are vague, ambiguous, broad and imprecise,” Alaka told court.
He asked court to halt the trial pending interpretation of the law by the Constitutional Court in which a petition has already been filed.
“We have a belief that the state is wrong in charging the accused under this provision of the law. Charging somebody basing on that section contravenes Article 28(1) and (12) of the Constitution.”
State drags feet
In response to the application, the DPP lawyers including Chief State Attorneys David Bisamunyu and Jonathan Muwaganya described the application by Nandutu’s lawyers as a tactic to delay the trial since the law being challenged is in plain sight.
“The law is not ambiguous but is very clear and simply needs plain interpretation and understanding of the English language. The section deals with property that is acquired as a result of an offence and this was clearly brought out in the indictment by indicating that the accused received 2000 iron sheets. It can therefore not be said to be vague and ambiguous,” Bisamunyu told court.
The prosecution lawyers insisted that there is nothing that warrants constitutional interpretation as alleged by Nandutu’s lawyers since the suspect property has already been defined.
Bisamunyu accused Nandutu’s lawyers of going for a fishing expedition with this application as well as the Constitutional Court petition that he said should be dismissed.
“We ask court to dismiss the application for being a delay tactic to a speedy trial.”
Trial judge, Lady Justice Jane Okuo Kajuga adjourned the matter to Monday, May, 29 to deliver her ruling in the mater.