Lawyer Steven Kalali Challenges New Bail Guidelines On Capital Offenders.

In Summary
  • They were issued by the Chief Justice of Uganda Alifonse Owinyi Owiny. 
  • The High Court has the mandate to hear such bail applications and the CJ, has discretion to either grant or not grant bail to a suspect who has spent the mandatory 180 days on remand without Committal. 
  • Lawyer Kalali says the CJ surpassed his powers and took on the work of Parliament that has powers to legislate.
  • He wants them guidelines quashed for being unconstitutional. 
court

Human Rights Activist and Lawyer Kalali Steven has filed a Constitutional petition  Challenging the bail guidelines & directives of 2022 issued by the chief justice of Uganda Alifonse Owinyi  Dollo.

In his petition filed against the Attorney General,  Lawyer Kali claims that the said guidelines  are  unconstitutional and In issuing them,  Justice Dollo abused  his  powers bestowed on him since they are in   contravention and inconsistent with various provisions of the 1995 constitution of  Uganda. 

 The petitioner claims that Justice Dollo, while exercising his powers given to him by article 133 of the Constitution  surpassed the legislative powers of Parliament by making provisions in regard to mandatory bail in capital  offences and vesting them to the High court that he is the only one who has jurisdiction to release any suspect who has spent over 180 days on remand.

"The constitution under Arricle 23(6c) clearly states that once a person has spent over 180 days on remand without Committal, the Court shall release suchnoerson on terms of bail I may deem fit.) Lawyer Kalali explains.

According to the lawyer,  the constitution does not specify on whether it should be the High Court limited with such powers and that such a suspect can be granted bail by the magistrate court that he will be currently appearing before.

He says that the Chief Jsustie  came up with guidelines that restricts or vests the powers to   the High Court  there by trying to amend the Constitutional provisions of Artiicle 23(6C) which is a mandate of Parliament pursuant to Article 79,12 and 91.

He adds that the guidelines tend to have a force of law and  lack sufficient public participation,  yet the Constitution of Uganda under the principles of Natiobal and Democratic policy gives individuals or citzeans  to take center stage in participation in some of the decisions made, yet there was no sufficient participation or consultation before the Chief Justice issued the impunity guidelines.

He now wants the Constitutional Court to declare the said guidelines unconstitutional and be quashed for lack of sufficient public participation since they are looking at mainly two rights they are likely to affect including the presumption of innocence and the right to liberty.

"Such a law that is likely to affect the rights that are enshrined under chapter 4 needs sufficient public participation.

The said guidelines were issued on the 27th of July this year, and according to the guidelines,   the clerk of the lower courts prepares the case file and sends to the High court registra, who then prepares the case file and forward it before  a High Court  judge for consideration.