Namuyanja & 3 Others v Uganda (Criminal Revision 4 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 2 (30 January 2025)

Full Case Text

# REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA HCT-00-CR- CV -0004-2024

## (Criminal revision case arising from Entelrbe criminal case number ENT-00-

co-0077-2023)

## AI. NAMUYANJA RUTH

## 42. WANJA SHARIF 43. FAMBA DODOVIKO 44. KABBUGO DEO :APPLICANTS

#### VERSTIS

UGANDA =ReSPONDENT

### BEFORE HON. LADY JUSTICE MARGARET MUTONYI. JHC.

#### RULING

#### Introduction.

This is an application for criminal revision brought by way of Notice of motion under sections 48 and 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act and rule 2 of the Judicature (Criminal Procedure Application rules) where counsel Zephania Zimbe from JS Mayanja -Nkanji & Co Advocates prayed for orders that:

- l) The plea Bargain Agreement endorsed by the trial Court in Entebbe Criminal case number 77 of 2023 and proceedings be revised, set aside or quashed. - 2) The fine of 8,000,000/: in default to 6 years imprisonment be set aside. - 3) The couft exercises its inherent and unlimited jurisdiction to sentence the Applicants on their own plea of guilty.

The grounds upon which the application was based were listed as follows:

- a) The Applicants are illiterate whose local language is Luganda which is not court language. - b) The court clerk /translator or interpreter did not attend the plea bargain proceedings before the trial court.

t. f r-- \,'

- c) The plea bargain Agreement endorsed by the trial Chief Magistrate was not interpreted and translated into the local language of the applicants which caused a miscarriage ofjustice. - d) The stated charges in the Plea Bargain Agreement are wrong in law against the applicants. - e) The applicants did not agree to the fine of8,000,000/= in default to 6 years imprisonment. - f) The applicants' remand period was not reduced from the 6 years imprisonment.

He prayed that in the interest ofjustice, the application should be granted.

## Affidavit evidence

The application was supported by the affidavits of the four Applicants.

In their affidavits in support, they all deponed to the fact that they all agreed to a fine of 3,000,000/= which was mysteriously changed to 8,000,000/: and did not agree to the fine of 8,000,000/= in default to 6 years imprisonment as stated in the plea bargain agreement.

This was in paragraphs 3 for Al, paragraph 9 for A.2. Much as there was misnumbering of the paragraphs as it should have been 6, paragraph I 2 for A3 which should have been 6 and paragraph l5 for A 4 which should have been paragraph 6 as well. Court did not consider misnumbering as fatal but sheer negligence on whoever prepared the affidavits.

A2, A3, A.4 under paragraph 2 of their affidavits deponed that they are illiterate persons who speak Luganda and not conversant with court language.

And that the plea bargain Agreement dated 27'r' of February 2023 endorsed and signed by the trial magistrate was not interpreted to them and translated into their local language. This was in paragraph 4 oftheir respective affidavit.

## Reply from respondent

In reply Shillah Kyoshabire a prosecutor at Uganda Wildlife Authority after perusing the NOM for revision and supporting affidavits opposed the application and affirmed as follows from paragraph 4 olher affidavit:

4) That save for paragraphs 4 and 8 of the affidavits in support for A l, paragraphs 8 and l0 for 42, paragraphs 8,9,10 and 12 for A.3 and paragraphs 16 and 18 for ,A'4 whose contents are not denied, the respondent denies the contents of the rest ofthe paragraphs and shall put the applicant to strict proofthereof.

- 5) That the applicants were charged with unlawful possession of protected species to wit 2 live parrots without a permit from the authority contrary to section 71[1][b] of the Uganda wildlife Act 2019[now cap315] which provides that upon conviction, an accused is sentenced to a maximum of life imprisonment or a maximum fine of ten thousand currency points or to both. - 6) That in response to paragraph 2 of the affidavit in support for A1, paragraph 8 for A2, paragraph 3 for A3 and paragraph 14 for A4. It is true that the applicants were produced in court on $25/01/2023$ for plea in the presence of Mr. Edward Ndahura as counsel on state brief appointed by court and the charges were read to the applicants in Luganda, a language they understood best and they denied the charges and the matter was adjourned to $13/02/2023$ for hearing. Therefore, it is true that the applicants were made aware of the charges preferred against them before the disputed plea bargain agreement was executed. - 7) That in addition to the foregoing, the applicants' submissions that they pleaded guilty to a different charge is merely speculative as the same was clearly explained to them in Luganda and confirmed in affirmative by the applicants. - 8) In response to paragraph 3 of the affidavit in support for A1, paragraph 8, and 9 for A2, paragraphs 11 and 12 for A3 and paragraphs 14 and 15 for A3, the grounds raised are speculative in nature as the applicants agreed with prosecution to pay a fine of UGX $8,000,000/=[Ug$ and a shillings eight million] in default to serve 6 years in prison as stated in the plea bargain agreement and not 3,000,000/= as alluded to. - 9) That it is indeed true that when the matter came up for hearing, state informed court that the applicants through their counsel had engaged them for plea bargain which position was confirmed by the applicants and their counsel before the trial chief Magistrate. - 10) That upon the confirmation in paragraph 9 herein, the charges were read again to the applicants in Luganda and each was required to make their own pronouncement to the charges and a plea of guilty was recorded for each accused. - 11) That neither the applicants nor their counsel disputed the charges that were read to them as this is clearly reflected on the trial court record. - 12)In response to paragraph 2, 3, and 4 of the affidavits in support for A2, A3 and A4, it is true that during the trial, the applicants were afforded the services of a court interpreter conversant and fluent in Luganda and it was clearly reflected on court record in accordance with rule 9(1) and 10 of the Judicature (Plea bargain)Rules 2016, which provides circumstances under which an interpreter or an advocate are supposed to be involved in the plea bargain negotiations before an accused can benefit from the plea bargain.

$\overline{3}$

- 13)That the plea bargain was initiated by counsel to the applicants and the same was properly explained to them and court was involved before the agreement could be signed. - l4)That in response to paragraph 4 of the affidavits in support fbr 42, A3 and ,A4, it is not true that the plea bargain agreement fully signed by the applicants and their counsel was not interpreted. The record clearly indicates that before the plea bargain agreement was tendered, the trial Magistrate inquired from the Applicants in Luganda if indeed they had entered into the plea bargain with prosecution and they confirmed in the affirmative; the terms clearly explained to the applicants in Luganda by the court interpreter before the trial Magistrate could sign and admit the plea bargain on record. - l5)That in response to paragraph 4,10,13 and l6 ofthe atlldavit in support for Al, A2, A3 and 44, in the event that remand period was not deducted from the custodial sentence, this Honorable Court is implored to correct the record of the trial magistrate by reducing the time spent on remand from the agreed 6 years. - l6)That allowing the convicts to benefit from this application against the sentences freely and voluntarily agreed to in the first place without good reason would undermine the relevance and objectives of plea bargaining in the criminal justice system as Rule l2(5) makes the plea bargain agreement binding on the parties noting that Rule 14 gives an accused person an opportunity to withdraw before couft passes the sentences but considering that the bargain was in accordance with the Rules, this was never invoked. - l7)That in arriving at the sentence of UGX 8,000,000/- in default to serve 6 years in prison, the trial magistrate considered the plea bargain agreement entered in between the applicant and the respondent and the applicants had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charge of possession of protected wildlife species to wit 2 parrots which attracts a punishment upon conviction of up to life imprisonment or a maximum fine of ten thousand currency points. - 18)That it is our submission that the sentence agreed to mutually was not excessive but reasonable in comparison with the maximum sentence of ten thousand currency points. - l9)That it is also our submission that the trial magistrate did not emor in anyway but adjudicated the matter in accordance with the law. - 20)That the respondent prays that this court declines to consider all the grounds raised in the Notice of motion and the affidavits in support and dismiss the application in its entity with costs.

Counsel for the Applicants and respondent were given time lines within which to file written submissions in support of their respective cases but they did not. In view

q I--

of the fact that section 5 I of the Criminal procedure Code Act cap I I 6 gives court discretion to hear parties or their advocates, Court chose to proceed without the submissions

## The issue for Courts consideration is Whether the proceedin gs in the lower court should be revised?

## Resolution of the issue.

The facts of this case fall under the ambit of revisionary powers of the High court as provided under section 50 (l) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap ll6 to wit:

"ln the case ofany proceedings in a magistrate's court the record of which has been called for or which has been reported for orders, or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, when it appears that in those proceedings an error material to the merits of any case or involving a miscarriage ofjustice has occurred, the High Court may

- a) In the case ofa conviction, exercise any ofthe powers conferred on it as a court ofappeal by sections 34 and 4l and may enhance the sentence. - b) In the case of any other order, other than an order of acquittal, alter or reverse the order. ...."

The essence of revision in a criminal trial as per the above section is to mainly correct errors or irregularities that may have occurred during the trial to ensure that justice is served and the accused receives a fair trial.

The grounds for revision must therefore be premised on either an error or irregularity in the proceedings or if the conviction and or sentence was illegal or improper.

The court may after being satisfied with the grounds reverse or alter the conviction and sentence or order a new trial all together.

Revision in the criminal justice system is important as it ensures that the rights of the accused are safe guarded and that justice is served.

It also helps maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring that errors or irregularities are corrected.

In summary the essence of revision in a criminal trial under section 50 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act of Uganda is to correct errors or irregularities, ensure justice and safe guard the rights of the accused.

This application arose out of a criminal trial that allegedly ended under plea bargain. The process was therefore supposed to be handled following The Judicature (Plea Bargain) rules 2016 Statutory Instrument No. 43.

The applicants are disputing their agreement on the sentence of a fine of $8,000,000/$ = [eight million shillings] or in default serve a sentence of 6 years imprisonment.

They are also alleging that they are illiterate people who did not understand the language of court and that there was no interpreter in court on the fateful day of 27th February 2023 and as such no person interpreted the agreement to them.

The respondent's learned state Attorney's important response to the above allegations is contained under paragraph 14 of her affidavit in reply to wit:

'That in response to paragraph 4 of the affidavits in support for A2, A3 and A4, it is not true that the plea bargain agreement fully signed by the applicants and their counsel was not interpreted. The record clearly indicates that before the plea bargain agreement was tendered, the trial Magistrate inquired from the Applicants in Luganda if indeed they had entered into the plea bargain with prosecution and they confirmed in the affirmative; the terms clearly explained to the applicants in Luganda by the court interpreter before the trial Magistrate could sign and admit the plea bargain on record.'

The answer to the above dispute between the applicants and the learned state Attorney can be found on the record of proceedings which the High court has to peruse carefully while looking for procedural errors, irregularities and or illegalities and in reference to the rules.

Plea bargain is described under rule 4 to **mean** *the process between an accused* person and the prosecution in which the accused person agrees to plead guilty in exchange for an agreement by the prosecutor to drop one or more charges, reduce a charge to a less serious offence or recommend a particular sentence subject to approval by the court and plea bargain agreement means an agreement entered into between the prosecution and an accused person regarding a charge or sentence against an accused.

Plea bargain being a process, involves a series of steps that are taken in order to achieve a particular end and in the case of a criminal trial, Rule 6 provides for the scope of plea bargain where the prosecution and accused agree to a promise to plead guilty for a lesser sentence or promise to cooperate as a witness for the prosecution in exchange for reduced charges or reduced sentence or both and or plead guilty to a minor or cognate offence.

Where parties agree, that is the prosecution and the accused, the plea bargain Agreement is executed as prescribed in the form set out in schedule 1 of the rules. (Rule 9 refers).

Under rule 10, the plea bargain agreement has to be explained to the accused. The rule provides that:

"A plea bargain agreement shall, before being signed by the accused, be explained to the accused person by his or her advocate or a justice of the peace in a language that the accused understands and if the accused person has negotiated with the prosecution through an interpreter, the interpreter shall certify to the effect that the interpretation was accurately done during the negotiations and execution in respect of the content of the agreement."

Under rule 12, it is provided that:

"1) Subject to the procedure prescribed in the schedule 2, the court shall inform the accused person of his or her rights, and shall satisfy itself that the accused person understands the following a) The right:

To plead not guilty or having already so pleaded, the effect of that plea.

- i. To be presumed innocent until proved guilty. - ii. To remain silent and not to testify during the proceedings. - iii. *Not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence.* - iv. To a full trial. - To be represented by an advocate of his or her choice at his or her $\nu$ . expense or in a case triable by the high court, to legal representation at the expense of the state.

$\overline{7}$

- b) That by accepting the plea agreement, he or she is waiving his or her right as provided under paragraph (a). - c) The nature of the charge he or she is pleading to. - d) Any maximum possible penalty, including imprisonment, fines, *community service, probation or conditional discharge.* - *e)* Any applicable forfeiture. - f) The court's authority to order compensation and restitution or both and - g) That by entering into a plea agreement, he or she is waiving the right to appeal except as to the legality or severity of sentence or if the judge sentences the accused outside the agreement.

(2) The charge shall be read and explained to the accused in a language that he or she understands and the accused shall be invited to take plea.

(3) The prosecution shall lay before the court the factual basis contained in the plea bargain agreement and the court shall determine whether there exists a basis for the agreement.

(4) The accused person shall freely and voluntarily, without threat or use of *force execute the agreement with full understanding of all matters.*

$(5)$ A plea bargain confirmation shall be signed by the parties before the presiding Judicial Officer in the Form set out in the schedule 3 and shall become part of the court record and shall be binding on the prosecution and the accused.

Rule 12 clearly brings out the constitutional right of an accused to a fair hearing as enshrined under Article 28 of the Constitution which include the right to be informed immediately, in a language that the person understands of the nature of the offence. Was this rule followed?

Perusal of the record of proceedings both hand written and certified revealed that the 4 Applicants plus another first appeared before the court on 25th February 2023.

Counsel Edward Ndahura was appointed to represent them on state brief since they were entitled to legal representation as a person convicted of the offence of illegal possession of protected wildlife species contrary to section 71(b) of the **Uganda Wild Life Act** is liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand currency points or to life imprisonment or both.

A one Edith was recorded as the clerk and a one Kefa for the state.

The record funher indicates that the Chief Magistrate Her Worship Stella Maris Amabilis read and explained the charges to A l, A'2, A'3, A.4, and A5 in Luganda, a language they each understand.

They all said it is not true and a plea of not guilty was entered

She explained to them their right ofbail but according to the record none applied for bail. The case was adjoumed to l3'r' February for hearing since inquiries were complete and were remanded to Kigo Prisons till then.

On l3/2/2023, all were present in court.

Counsel Edward Ndahura appeared for Al, A2, A4 and A5 while Counsel Wandabwa Emmanuel appeared for A'3.

Edith was the clerk and Kefa appeared for the state.

Counsel Edward prayed for Adjournment to have disclosure and informed court that "we are seeking a plea bargain".

The court adjourned the case to 27'h February 2023 for hearing and remanded all the five accused persons and witness statement was to issue.

## Judicial officers play a vital role in upholding justice, ensuring that criminal proceedings are fair, efficient and in accordance with the law.

The leamed Chief Magistrate according to the record, did not confirm from the accused persons whether what counsel Edward for A I , A2, A4 and A,5 submitted on exploring or seeking plea bargain was correct. She did not inquire from Counsel Wandabwa Emmanuel for A,3 whether that was the position for his client as well.

Rule 8 allows court participation in plea bargain save that where the plea bargain negotiations fail, the judicial officer does not preside over the trial.

It is therefore important that the judicial officer upon being infbrmed of the interest of the parties to explore plea bargain, confirms from the accused persons who are very key in the negotiations whether they are interested in pleading guilty to the charges under plea bargain.

The record on 131212023 does not even indicate that the case was adjoumed fbr plea taking under plea bargain but for hearing on 271212023 .

Proceedings on 2712/2023 are very clear.

All the accused were present in couft. -\

l', Counsel Elizabeth Achola appeared for Al, Wandabwa Emmanuel for ,{3 was present and the record indicates also for A2, A4 and A,5. lt is not clear whether he appeared for A2, A,4 and A.5 as well. There is no mention about Counsel Edward Ndahura who was appointed by the court to represent the accused and how Elizabeth Achola and Wandabwa came on board.

Edward who sought for adjoumment to have disclosure and seeking a plea bargain was completely out of the picture.

The accused persons are not recorded anywhere indicating they are aware of what is going on, or whether they understand what plea bargain means.

Kefa appeared for the state but there was no court clerk

The advocates, other than the record indicating are present, did not address court at all. The record does not indicate how Achola Elizabeth came to represent A1 and how Wandabwa Emmanuel came to represent 43, and also 42, A4 and 45.

Then the state submitted, "The last time the matter came up, we informed you that we were exploring a plea bargain. I pray that I tender in an amended charge sheet which is simplified."

The defense team that was in court on l3'h February for A l, A2, A4 and ,A5 was not present on 27tr' February 2023.

If instructions changed, why was Jenipher Achola silent about who had given her the instructions and what instructions she had received from the client?

Who was the state referring to as we? It is not clear at all.

Further scrutiny ofthe proceedings of27'h February 2023, revealed that after the state tendered in an amended charge sheet, the leamed chief magistrate recorded;

"Amended charge sheet received, and charges to be re-read to the accused persons Al, 42, 43, 44, A5.

What followed was, "it is true and plea of guilty was entered."

The procedure of reading an amended charge sheet and plea taking was not followed.

There was no court clerk or interpreter in court to interpret the amended charge sheet to the Accused.

Nothing from the record indicates that they understood \he charee before pleading guilty.

The same applies to the facts of the case.

All that was recorded was "f-acts are true and correct"

There is nothing to show that they were asked whether they understood the facts and whether they are correct.

The landmark case on criminal practice and procedure where a plea of guilty is recorded is the case of Adan V Republic Crim. Appeal no 58 of 1973 EA 445 where it was held among others that the charge and all the essential ingredients of the offence should be explained to the accused in his language or in a language he understands.

The accused's own words should be recorded and if they are an admission, a plea ofguilty should be recorded.

The prosecution should then immediately state the facts and the accused should be given an opportunity to dispute or explain the facts or to add any relevant facts.

It is therefore important to have an interpreter in court and ask the accused whether he or she has understood the charge before asking them to plead to the charge.

If they admit to the charge, a plea of guilty can then be entered and the state proceeds to state the facts. An accused should be advised to listen carefully to the facts of the case how he or she committed the offence

After the facts of the case are narrated to the court and the accused, it is equally important to ask the accused ifthey have understood the facts as narrated by the prosecution.

The response should be clearly recorded and if they admit the facts, that is when a conviction on their own plea of guilty can be recorded

Under plea bargaining, the procedure is the same save that, the court must right before the process of plea taking commences, inform the accused that he or she has constitutional rights which are explained to the accused and confirm from them whether they accept to waive those rights.

If the answer is in the affirmative, the parties are given an opportunity to explore plea bargaining.

The parties should be free to consult the bench and when they are ready, and plea bargain agreement signed, the procedure is a bit different from the ordinary plea taking. ..,,

This is the practice now where the plea bargain is successful:

- L The State Attomey or the defense counsel informs court that the case is for plea taking under plea bargain. This is because the rules allow either party to initiate a plea bargain as per rule 5 of The Judicature (Plea bargain) rules supra. - 2. The court then orders for disclosure ofthe evidence in possession of the prosecution to the accused and his counsel to enable informed negotiations or bargaining as per rule 7. - 3. The court avails itself for consultation in case the parties want to amend the charge sheet and or on possible sentence before the agreement is brought to court for approval and recording. (Rule 8 refers.) - 4. Ideally, the interests of the victim, the complainants and the community should be taken into consideration during the negotiations. They should be consulted. (Rule I I refers. ) - 5. In case the negotiations fail, the judicial officer involved in the process, does not preside over the trial to avoid bias. (Rule 8(3) refers) - 6. In case they succeed, a plea bargain agreement is signed in a prescribed format under schedule I as per rule 9. - 7. The plea bargain agreement must be explained to the accused very well which is in mandatory terms in a language he understands, by his advocate, justice of the peace, and or interpreter who must certify that he accurately interpreted by signing on the agreement, as per rule 10. - 8. The accused is then arraigned before court to take plea under plea bargain and the normal plea taking procedure takes place where the charges are read and explained to him or her in a language he or she understands - 9. After he or she pleads guilty and admits the facts of the case and is convicted, the prosecutor then informs court of the plea bargain agreement which agreement has the provision for filling in the charges, indicates the constitutional rights of the accused and part where he or she agrees to waive those rights, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the agreed facts, the circumstances under which the accused agreed to plead guilty, sentence agreed on or any other orders, part where accused, his advocate, prosecutor and interpreter signs, and court approves and officially tenders it in court for explanation to the accused and endorsement. - l0. The court then explains the contents of the agreement to the accused generally especially in regard to his or her constitutional rights and

waiver of the same, confirms whether the plea of guilty was voluntarily entered into with full understanding of the consequences thereof and if he or she agreed to the sentence. Refer to rule 12.

I l. After the court is satisfied with the plea bargain agreement it can then be signed by the parties and the court endorses it and sentences the accused as per the plea bargain agreement ofcourse bearing in mind that the period on remand must be arithmetically deducted from the agreed period if it was not taken care of during the plea bargain process and the agreement becomes part ofthe court record.

In this case the applicant's complaint is that there was no interpretation and they never agreed on the sentence.

The court record indeed shows that there was no interpretation on 27th February 2023.

The leamed Chief Magistrate adopted her own procedure different from that provided for under the rules.

The leamed state attomey submitted in allocutus alleging that the accused with their counsel agreed on the sentence ofa fine of8,000,000/-: or 6 years imprisonment in case of default. The court never confirmed or verified that allegation of agreement on sentence.

The accused/appellants don't appear anywhere on record that they agreed to that plea bargain agreement as it was never explained to them at all by the Chief Magistrate.

It is only the advocates who appeared to have agreed to the agreement yet they never clearly indicated how they got instructions from the accused/applicants.

No wonder, the applicants later had to file this application for revision.

#### PLEA BARGAIN AGREEMENTS

Since plea bargain agreements are the bone of contention in this application, Court took time to study the plea bargain agreements dated 27/2/2023 that revealed serious flouting of the plea bargain rules.

#### AI Namuyanja Ruth.

On page l, the space for the Advocate's name was blank and yet it was alleged she was represented by Elizabeth Achola.

1..- r-

On page 6 on the part of sentence, there is tigure 8,000,000/= which is so pressed to make it appear to have been 3,000,000/: at first, and then 4,000,000/: which is crossed. There is no countersigning on these obvious alterations. Court found it hard to believe that an advocate of Court could ignore such errors and not countersign or make her client counter sign.

What about the court? How could it rniss seeing the apparent error on the document?

When it came to the part of interpreter's/translator's statement it was indicated not applicable yet the learned Chief Magistrate clearly indicated that the accused understood the Luganda language when they first appeared befbre her. I did not come across any statement to the contrary that Ruth Namuyanja understands English and prefers it as her language in the proceedings.

# Wajja Sharif.

His agreement did not indicate his advocate on page I just like for A l.

No aggravating factors were indicated on page 4. Sentence was to pay 4000,000/: then crossed and changed to 8,000,000/= on page 6.

He did not counter sign on this alteration and so was his advocate who claimed to be Wandabwa Emmanuel on page 7. No interpreter or translator was involved indicating it was not applicable on page 8, yet when he first appeared in court, his language was recorded to be Luganda.

## Famba Dodoviko

His agreement did not indicate his advocate on page l.

Sentence was a fine of four million then crossed to read eight- or six-years' sentence. It was not counter signed by him but his advocate Wandabwa.

The part ofthe interpreter /translator was left blank yet he also indicated Luganda as his language when he first appeared.

## Kabbugo Deo.

His case is very interesting and shows that Wandabwa Emmanuel was on record as his advocate.

On page l, his advocate filled in his names which he didn't do for the others.

He signed for a fine of 4,000,000/: or serve 6 years imprisonment. There was no interpreter or translator for him just like the others. i(. -

What this court found surprising was that on page 5 of the certified proceedings and even the hand written, Kabbugo Deo was sentenced to pay a fine of $8,000,000/=$ or in default to 6 years imprisonment. The trial Chief Magistrate conveniently signed a commitment warrant for Kabbugo Deo for payment of a fine of 8,000,000/= and in default 6 years imprisonment on the same date of $27/2/2023$ .

What a travesty of justice.

There is no doubt that the Judicature Plea Bargain Rules were flouted.

The trial Chief Magistrate has no right to impose her own sentence under plea bargain.

This raises more questions as to whether there was any plea bargain session at all.

However, even if it is understood that rules of procedure are mere handmaidens of justice, and courts of law are required to resolve disputes without being unduly hindered by legal technicalities, the breach herein violated fundamental rights of the applicants/accused, the non-derogatory right protected under Article $44(c)$ of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. The right to a fair hearing which is clearly explained under Article 28 of the Constitution.

I therefore find the reply from the learned State Attorney ridiculous where she deponed that the applicants agreed to pay a fine of 8,000,000/= or imprisonment of 6 years in default. Keffa Ndeke, the prosecuting state Attorney should have appeared here to personally face the embarrassment.

I find that the advocates, the prosecution and the court acted contrary to the law rendering the whole plea bargain process irregular thereby causing a miscarriage of justice.

The accused's right to legal presentation was violated as the advocate who was appointed by court abandoned them and this court found masqueraders on record because there was no evidence of instruction from the applicants or from court and their conduct throughout the trial did not reflect the interest of the applicants at all. It is incomprehensible that an advocate would just look on as court proceeds without a court clerk in a serious offence that has life imprisonment as the maximum and they don't say anything in court apart from, yes, that is the position.

Look on as court pronounces a fine of 8,000,000/= when you have purportedly signed a plea bargain agreement of a fine of $4,000,000/=$

This case underscores the need for effective legal representation which is crucial in criminal trials.

It is intended to ensure that the accused's constitutional rights are protected throughout the trial process.

A skilled defence attomey must have an in-depth knowledge of the law and procedural rules.

Effective legal presentation can never end up in a revision or appeal arising out of negotiation which ends up in a plea bargain agreement.

## Decision of the court

In view of all the flaws that have been pointed out above, the application is allowed and the criminal proceedings are quashed. The erroneous conviction is set aside and the orders of the trial court of payment of a fine of 800,000/: shs. or six years' imprisonment for the applicants is hereby set aside.

I am ignoring the prayer of sentencing the applicants on their own plea of guilty as prayed by their counsel because there is no plea of guilty on record. I don't know where he got it from.

A right to a fair hearing must be upheld by every court or tribunal and any violation should result in quashing such trials.

It is directed that they be discharged from prison immediately. fught of appeal to the state explained.

# Dated at Kampala this 30th day of January,2025

Hon. Lady Justice Margaret Mutonyi, JHC

Criminal Division

Ruling delivered in the presence of:

- 1. Ms Tuheisomwe Annet, Legal Manager/Prosecutor UWA, for the Respondent. - 2. The Applicants.

Court Clerk - Mr. Balinone Charles.

Festo Nsenga - Deputy Registrar

3010112024-1 l:35 a/m