The East African Court of Justice will tomorrow hear the second reference in which the Ugandan Inspector General of Government (IGG) is seeking to join a case where former principal accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, Geoffrey Kazinda, is challenging what he calls illegal confiscation of his properties. The regional court will consist of a panel of five justices led by Principal Judge Yohane Bokobora Masara.
Kazinda, who is representing himself, will appear via a video link from Luzira prison, where he has been confined for 13 years. Other justices on the panel include Richard Weguli, Richard Muhumuza, Gacuko Leonard, and Kayembe Ignace Kassanda. ‘Please note that if there is no appearance on your part, the court will proceed to hear the case and make necessary orders, your absence notwithstanding,’ the court notice dated October 1 reads in part.
The ombudsman’s bid to join the Kazinda case follows a ruling by the Anti-Corruption Court in November 2020, directing the confiscation of properties, including two Mercedes Benzes, a Dodge, and a BMW. The court also ordered confiscation of land titles: Plot no 190, Bukoto Estate; Plot no 264, Bukoto Sabaddu, and Plot no 2132 Bukoto Mengo.
On April 20, 2022, then Anti-Corruption Court Registrar, Pamela Lumunu Ocaya directed the bailiffs: ‘You are hereby/ commanded to forceful evict/ remove the accused (Kazinda), their agents, tenants and all those who derive authority from them in respect of the above mentioned properties or any person bound by the decrees/ orders who may refuse to vacate the same and to vest them in the names of government of Uganda.’ The confiscation orders followed the conviction of Kazinda on three counts of illicit enrichment, coupled with the issuance of confiscation orders in favour of the IGG.
Justice Margaret Tibulya sentenced Kazinda to 15 years in prison. Kazinda petitioned the Court of Appeal, which reduced his sentence to seven years, but it was non-committal on upholding the confiscation orders. Despite the non-committal on the confiscation orders, the Anti-Corruption Court had revived the confiscation process, a move that made Kazinda to seek redress from the East African Court of Justice.
Kazinda argues that Lamunu issued confiscation orders based on the Anti-Corruption Court orders, which had been varied and suspended by the Court of Appeal judgment; no 60-day confiscation notice was given to him, hence denying him the right to be heard, and that the IGG commenced execution proceedings of the confiscation orders when the appeal against them was pending.
‘.Which actions and decisions were unlawful and an interference with Articles 6 (d), and 7 (2) of the East African Community (The Treaty) in which fundamental and operational principles of the community require partner states to abide by good governance, including adherence to the principles of the rule of law, democracy, accountability..’ Kazinda stated.
He wants the regional court to issue orders restoring him to the situation he was in before the court bailiffs of Pax effected the confiscation orders of the Anti-Corruption Court, set aside the ruling and confiscation orders of registrar Lamunu. In her affidavit before the regional court, Deputy IGG Patricia Achan Okiria states that the IGG, having prosecuted Kazinda, executed and participated in the court orders that are sought to be quashed, it’s a necessary party that ought to be joined as a respondent to civil reference No. 48/2022 (Geoffrey Kazinda vs Attorney General).
‘The statement reference of the 1st respondent and the affidavit in support thereof raises issues which the applicant (IGG) is familiar with that would aid the court to completely adjudicate upon and resolve all the issues involved.’Ms Achan stated.
She added: ‘The applicant that executed the court decree and confiscated the 1st respondent’s property in performance of its constitutional mandate and functions, will suffer irrevocable damage, and it would set a wrong precedent that will affect its future operations if not given an opportunity to be heard in the civil reference as a necessary party.’
This is the second attempt by the IGG to join Kazinda’s cases at the East African Court of Justice.
In November 2023, a five-member panel of judges dismissed with costs the application, also on illicit enrichment, reasoning that the Ugandan government ombudsman is not an institution of the East African Community as envisaged under Article 30 (1) nor is it an organ of the Community as stipulated under Article 9(1) of the treaty. The court held that the Ugandan IGG has no international legal personality and hence cannot be held responsible for the government of Uganda’s acts or omissions under the Treaty. The regional court is yet to issue its ruling on the bill of costs that the IGG should pay Kazinda.