Law
Why Constitutional Court Upheld Committal Proceedings for Capital Offences in Magistrates Courts
The Constitutional Court has dismissed a petition challenging provisions of the Trial on Indictments Act that allow Magistrates’ Courts to conduct committal proceedings in capital offence cases before they are referred to the High Court.
The petition, filed by Asingwire Alex Mukasa, argued that Sections 1 and 16 of the Act — along with Guidelines 10(2) and 10(3) on bail — violate constitutional guarantees of a fair and speedy hearing and the presumption of innocence. Asingwire contended that since Magistrates’ Courts cannot grant bail in capital offences, allowing them to handle committal proceedings delays justice and effectively amends the Constitution.
In his defence, the Attorney General urged the court to reject the petition, noting that both provisions had already been the subject of previous rulings — including the Barihaihi case, in which the court upheld Section 1, and a Supreme Court decision striking down Section 16’s bail restrictions.
Delivering the lead judgment, Justice Esta Nambayo agreed, saying there was “no justification for departure” from the Barihaihi precedent, which remains “good law.” She added that if Magistrates’ Courts are still applying Section 16 in disregard of the Supreme Court’s decision, the remedy lies in filing for enforcement of constitutional rights in the High Court.
On the bail guidelines, the court ruled they are not inconsistent with the Constitution, stressing that while Magistrates’ Courts cannot grant bail in cases triable only by the High Court, the law does not prohibit bail in capital offences — it simply reserves the discretion to the High Court.
Justices Irene Mulyagonja, Byaruhanga Jessy Rugyema, Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka, and John Mike Musisi concurred with the ruling, sealing the court’s position that committal proceedings in Magistrates’ Courts remain constitutional.
Comments
