A section of the legal fraternity has critcised President Museveni for questioning the Judiciary following the acquittal of a suspect accused of threatening to kill a gold investor, Mr Carlos Cohen.
In his letter dated October 3, the President wrote to Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, requesting a review of the case of Joram Itungo, formerly a State House staff.
‘By copy of this letter, I request the Chief Justice to review the case of Joram Itungo. How did he get bail and acquitted in such a serious accusation notwithstanding?’ the President wrote.
The President’s letter has since kicked up a storm in the legal circles, with lawyers describing it as interference with the independence of the Judiciary that is granted by the Constitution.
Article 128 of the 1995 Uganda Constitution states that the Judiciary is independent and cannot be controlled by any person or authority.
‘It really shows how there is no separation of powers. It’s now exceedingly common for the President to direct judges on what to do. You remember the time when he directed them not to grant bail, and the letters regarding the Muslim property wrangles, that is wrong,’ Mr Anthony Asimwe, the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, said yesterday.
Mr Asiimwe warned that such unconstitutional directives have a high chance of eroding the public confidence in the institution of the Judiciary and could make them start looking for justice elsewhere.
Similarly, Senior Constitutional Lawyer, Mr Peter Walubiri said the President used the wrong channels in addressing his grievance.
‘He simply had to appeal to the High Court; that is the normal way of doing things. Also, he should have gone through the DPP to see that an appeal was lodged. But if the President suspected some kind of indiscipline, then he should have filed a complaint with the Judicial Service Commission. That is not the work of the CJ. Why doesn’t he take an interest in people’s trials that haven’t taken place for decades, which is clearly overbearing on the Chief Justice,’ Mr Walubiri said. Another lawyer, Mr Eron Kiiza, also did not have kind words for the President.
‘This doesn’t look good with the Judiciary. But Museveni has the machinery to investigate if there was corruption involved; he needed to file a complaint to the JSC and not to the Chief Justice. He should be open-minded if he wants justice.’
According to court documents, the prosecution alleged that Mr Itungo conspired with a security guard, Abraham Eramu, to murder the investor in exchange for a Shs36m reward. Court documents further showed that on August 5, 2023, the investor, Mr Cohen, a Portuguese national, reported for his usual work chores at his Ntinda-based gold refinery known as Feldstein Trading refinery.
As he was going about with his work, unknown people from security agencies and the Financial Intelligence Authority (FIA) stormed his office. They began to search his office and allegedly went away with $52,000 that he had kept in his safe deposit box.
Following the alleged harassment, Mr Cohen wrote to the then Inspector General of Police, Mr Martins Okoth Ochola, and also copied in President Museveni, who regretted the incident but promised to take stern action.
Mr Itungo was arrested on allegations that he conspired with security personnel to kill the investor. But in his judgment, Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi, acquitted him because there was no evidence of a meeting of minds between Mr Itungo and the security guard, Mr Eramu.
‘The essence of criminal conspiracy is proof of agreement. For the court to rule that there was an agreement in cases of conspiracy, the conspirators must have agreed to carry out an illegal act. The minds of the conspirators must have met,’ Magistrate Kayizzi held.
The magistrate stressed that under Ugandan law, conspiracy requires an actual agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act. ‘In this case, Eramu himself rejected the alleged assignment. There was no agreement,’ he explained. He added that there was no independent evidence corroborating the alleged plan.