The High court in Kampala has dismissed lawyer Male Mabirizi’s appeal challenging the rejection of his private criminal complaint against Gen 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, which rejected Mabirizi’s complaint and declined to issue criminal summonses against the 18 respondents.
Mabirizi’s complaint stemmed from the launch of the PLU on February 7, 2024, at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, Kampala. He accused the respondents, most of them 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’s presidential ambitions.
The other respondents are 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 due consideration to his affidavit. He asked the High court to overturn the decision and order the issuance of criminal summonses against the respondents.
However, justice Wolimbwa ruled that although a private complainant is not required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt before criminal summonses can be issued, the complaint must contain sufficient factual details to show 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 launch, leadership and political objectives but had failed to provide sufficient facts demonstrating how those circumstances constituted the alleged offences.
On the allegation that the PLU was an unlawful society, Wolimbwa said the supporting affidavit did not identify any declaration, instruction, decision or course of action showing that the organisation intended to interfere with or resist the administration of justice.
He 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 Mabirizi had not provided sufficient particulars to establish a prima facie case of conspiracy, including evidence of an agreement among the respondents to pursue an unlawful purpose.
On the allegation that the respondents had 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.
Regarding the alleged unlawful speeches, 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 require them to search for evidence that a complainant has failed to provide.
Wolimbwa clarified that dismissing the complaint did not amount to a determination that all the PLU’s activities were lawful. Rather, the decision was based on the insufficiency of the allegations and supporting evidence presented to the court.
He also declined to endorse the lower court’s description 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 and upheld the lower court’s decision. It declined to order the issuance of criminal summonses against the respondents and made no order for further investigations or a rehearing.
