PLU LEGAL BATTLE! High Court Throws Out Mabirizi’s Appeal Against Muhoozi, 17 Others
Gen Muhoozi
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an appeal by lawyer Male Mabirizi challenging the rejection of his private criminal complaint against General Muhoozi Kainerugaba and 17 others over the formation and activities of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU).
In a ruling delivered electronically on Tuesday, High Court Judge Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa upheld a May 24, 2024 decision by the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court rejecting Mabirizi’s complaint and declining to issue criminal summonses against the 18 respondents.
Mabirizi’s complaint arose from the launch of the PLU on February 7, 2024, at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, Kampala. He accused 18 individuals, mainly politicians, of managing or assisting in managing an unlawful society, conspiracy to commit a felony, holding themselves out as members of an unlawful society, and making speeches intended or likely to encourage support for such a society.
The PLU is a pressure group associated with efforts to mobilise support for Muhoozi Kainerugaba’s presidential ambitions.
The other respondents were Captain Mike Mukula, Frank Tumwebaze, Margaret Muhanga, Harriet Ntabazi, Godfrey Baluku Kabyanga, Haruna Kasolo Kyeyune, Michael Mawanda, David Kabanda, Kisos Abdi Fadhil Chemaswet, Alex Ruhunda, Ojara Mapendunzi, Jimmy Lwanga, Twaha Kagabo Mzee, Fred Muhangi, Simon Lutaaya Muyanga, Cedric Babu Ndirima and Balam Barugahara Ateenyi.
Mabirizi argued that the magistrate had erred by relying on consultations with local administrators while failing to give proper consideration to his affidavit. He asked the High Court to overturn the decision and direct the issuance of criminal summonses against the respondents.
However, Justice Wolimbwa ruled that although a private complainant is not required to prove an accused person’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt before criminal summonses can be issued, the complaint must contain sufficient factual details to demonstrate that an offence may have been committed and link the proposed accused persons to it.
The judge found that Mabirizi had identified the organisation, its alleged launch, leadership and political objectives but had failed to provide sufficient facts showing how those circumstances constituted the alleged criminal offences.
On the allegation that the PLU was an unlawful society, the court found that the supporting affidavit did not identify any declaration, instruction, decision or course of action demonstrating that the organisation intended to interfere with or resist the administration of justice.
Justice Wolimbwa emphasised that supporting the political ambitions of a serving military officer did not, in itself, automatically render an organisation unlawful. The court also found that the complaint lacked sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, including facts demonstrating an agreement among the respondents to pursue an unlawful purpose.
Regarding the allegation that the respondents held themselves out as members of an unlawful society, the judge ruled that the presumption of membership arising from attendance at a meeting could not apply unless the organisation had first been established to be unlawful.
On the alleged unlawful speeches, Justice Wolimbwa noted that Mabirizi’s affidavit did not identify the individuals who made the speeches or sufficiently describe their words or substance to establish the alleged offence. The judge also rejected the argument that the magistrate should have ordered police investigations after receiving the complaint.
He explained that the law gives magistrates discretion to direct further investigations where appropriate but does not oblige them to search for evidence that a complainant has failed to provide.
Justice Wolimbwa further clarified that the dismissal of the complaint did not amount to a determination that all activities of the PLU were lawful. Rather, the decision was based on the insufficiency of the allegations and supporting evidence presented to the court.
The judge also declined to endorse the lower court’s characterisation of the complaint as malicious, observing that insufficient evidence alone did not establish that Mabirizi had acted with improper motives.
The High Court consequently dismissed the appeal under Section 32(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, upheld the lower court’s decision and declined to order the issuance of criminal summonses against the 18 respondents. The court made no order for further investigations or a rehearing.
GOT A HOT STORY? LET US KNOW!
Got breaking news, explosive secrets, or hard evidence?
Email us: redpeppertips@gmail.com
We accept tips, documents, videos, photos, and recordings—the more evidence you have, the better.
CONFIDENTIALITY IS OUR TOP PRIORITY. SOURCES ARE ALWAYS PROTECTED!
About Post Author
