Phillip Bayisirirya v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 67 of 2016) [2024] UGHRC 4 (27 November 2024)


# THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TRIBUNAL **HOLDEN AT FORT PORTAL**

# **COMPLAINT NO. UHRC/FPT/067/2016**

**COMPLAINANT** PHILLIP BAYISIRIRYA ....................................

# $-AND-$

#### ATTORNEY GENERAL ::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

# **CORAM:**

HON. COL. (RTD.) STEPHEN BASALIZA COMMISSIONER $2.$

- HON. LAMEX OMARA APITTA $3.$ - HON. CRISPIN KAHERU $\overline{4}$

**CHAIRPERSON COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER**

# **DECISION**

The complainant brought this complaint against the respondent seeking compensation for alleged violation of his right to personal liberty. Vide his complaint form dated 19<sup>th</sup> July, 2016, Bayisirirya alleged that on 21<sup>st</sup> April 2016 while at Bundibusoli trading center where he had sought refuge from post-election violence, he was arrested by 12 policemen on

suspicion of committing crimes of murder and malicious damage to property. He was taken to Bundibusoli Police Post where he was detained for 2 hours. He was then taken to Bundibugyo Police Station where he was detained until 5<sup>th</sup> May, 2016 when he was arraigned in Court. He was remanded to Katojo Government Prison. Bayisirirya contended that the above alleged actions by Policemen amounted to violation of his right to personal liberty, for which he holds the respondent vicariously liable.

The respondent's representatives Ms. Rachael Atumanyise, Mr. Isaac Singura and Mr. Hannington Rwamwana denied liability.

#### **Issues:**

- Whether the respondent's agents violated the complainant's $(i)$ right to personal liberty. - $(ii)$ Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation.

We wish to put on record that the tribunal as currently constituted did not hear this complaint; it was heard by our departed colleague Dr. Katebalirwe Amooti Wa Irumba. This decision is based on his record of proceedings.

$\overline{2}$

We also note that the respondent's representatives attended all sessions and duly cross-examined the complainant, a sole witness in his matter, but did not call any witnesses to defend the matter. Neither did they file any submissions. This however did not in any way diminish the complainant's duty to prove his case against the respondent to the satisfaction of the tribunal. Sections 101 and 102 of the Evidence Act Cap 6 refer.

Back to the issues.

$\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{C}}$

#### Whether the respondent's agents violated the complainant's $(i)$ right to personal liberty:

The right to personal liberty is protected by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution), Article 6 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Law of Tort Richard Clayton and Hugh under the tort of False Imprisonment. Tomlinson in their book, The Law of Human Rights Vol.1 write as follows:

"The tort of false imprisonment is committed by someone who intentionally subjects another to total restraint of movement either by actively causing his confinement or preventing him from

14 days by Police officers of Bundibugyo Police Station before he was taken to court, in breach of Article $23(4)(b)$ of the Constitution.

The respondent had the duty to justify the detention of Phillip Bayisirirya beyond 48 hours before they took him to Court. (See Sekaddu v Sebaduka 1968 E. A. 213). The respondent failed to explain or justify the detention of Bayisirirya for 14 days as the respondent's representatives neither presented any defence witness nor filed submissions in defence of their agents' actions.

But the respondent had a bit of luck; the complainant himself at least justified his arrest. He revealed that he was suspected to have committed murder and malicious damage to property. The property in issue was 3 houses which he was alleged to have burnt down. The charges he faced were very serious. He conveniently feigned ignorance of who his victims were. To him, and to those who solicited, registered, investigated and prosecuted this matter, the victims in those crimes were totally They are not mentioned anywhere. The arrest of inconsequential. Bayisirirya, and initial detention for 2 days, was therefore justified. It is unfortunate that the state failed to produce him in court within 48 hours as provided by law.

But to hold that the respondent's agents violated the complainant's human rights would be too harsh in the circumstances of this case. We are safer concluding that the detention of the complainant beyond 48 hours was unlawful, and we so hold.

Throughout the period in issue the Police officers of Bundibugyo Police Station were acting in the course of their employment as agents of the state. The respondent is vicariously liable for their actions.

# (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation:

We are satisfied that there was "an infringement" of the complainant's freedom of movement. He is therefore entitled to compensation. Article $53(2)(b)$ of the Constitution refers.

We proceed to assess the scope of the compensation.

Phillip Bayisirirya spent 12 days in illegal detention. But his detention though illegal was neither arbitrary nor malicious. He was reasonably suspected to have committed very serious crimes including murder; the ultimate crime. When asked by Ms. Atumanyise, learned Counsel for the respondent, about the names of the victims in those crimes Bayisirirya came off as arrogant and insensitive. He said, "I don't know the names.

But many people died during election of the LC.5 Chairman around March 2016". To him those victims were worthless, and do not deserve being remembered!

The absurdity of this case was perhaps best illustrated at the commencement of the hearing of his case, by Commission Counsel's presentation of Bayisirirya as "a remandee at Katojo Prison". This man (Bayisirirya) went on to say, "I was released on 15<sup>th</sup> September, 2016 and still report to High Court at Fort Portal".

Is it funny or not that a man who had spent almost 4 and a half months on remand in prison was pursuing the state for compensation for alleged violation of his right to personal liberty for 12 days? Actually at the time of filing this complaint, that is, on 19<sup>th</sup> July, 2016, Bayisirirya was still on remand at Katojo Prison. This means that the UHRC officer, Binta Anitah, who registered this complaint did so at Katojo Prison. Bayisirirya did not go to the UHRC to complain; the UHRC went to him.

The bigger question however, rotates around the motive for filing this complaint. Was it intended to enforce Bayisirirya's right to personal liberty, or to deflect from his criminal trial in High Court at Fort Portal? If the latter, then it was super effective; Bayisirirya appeared in 2 different courts concurrently. In High Court he was an accused person $-$ facing trial for intentionally taking the life of another person, while before the UHRC tribunal he was a vulnerable victim of human rights violations. What a circus!

We will not lose sight of the environment in which the Police operated during the period in issue. Thankfully, Bayisirirya himself described it perfectly well. This was the aftermath of general elections. Tempers were Violent crimes were rampant. "Many people died around March hot. 2016". The Police force was therefore overstretched. This made it almost impossible for Police to investigate all crimes and take suspects, including Bayisirirya, to Court within 48 hours.

consideration $\overline{of}$ $\ln$ all the above circumstances. deem $\overline{\text{we}}$ U. Shs1,000,000= (One Million Shillings) adequate compensation to Bayisirirya for his unlawful detention by Police officers of Bundibugyo Police Station.

### **ORDER:**

$\epsilon_{\infty} = 1$

- $(i)$ The complaint is allowed in part. - $(ii)$ The respondent is ordered to pay the complainant U. Shs.1,000,000= (One Million Shillings) as general damages for his unlawful detention.

The U. Shs.1,000,000= (One Million Shillings) will carry $(iii)$ interest at 10% per annum from the date hereof until payment in full.

Either party dissatisfied with this decision may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.

Dated at Fort Portal this ... $\overbrace{\qquad \qquad }$ day of ....... November....... 2024.

HON. MARIAM WANGADYA

**CHAIRPERSON**

$\overline{w}$ $\rightarrow$ $\overline{z}$

HON. COL. (RTD.) STEPHEN BASALIZA

COMMISSIONER

turals **COMMISSIONER**

$$w/-$ **COMMISSIONER**

HON. LAMEX OMARA APITTA

HON. CRISPIN KAHERU