It is a well-held principle in international criminal law that once a state is seen making positive steps in bringing accused persons to trial for any crime, then another state shouldn’t rush to punish the accused persons through the imposition of sanctions as this would undermine the presumption of innocence cast on all accused persons in criminal law.
International law encourages state parties to try accused persons or, short of that, hand them over for trial elsewhere. The Ugandan government has already initiated the process of trying the accused persons. For example, the likes of Hon. Kitutu, Hon. Nandutu, and Hon. Lugolobi are before the Anti-Corruption Court facing a host of charges against them. Similarly, Ugandan municipal statutes, including international law, discourage double punishment, including multiple trials of accused persons in coordinate courts on the same offenses. For example, Article 28(9) of the Constitution and Section 18 of the Penal Code Act discourage double punishment of the accused persons for the same offenses.
In one of the leading cases related to the extradition of the former president of Senegal, Hissène Habré, the question of law was whether he should be handed over to Portugal for trial or be tried from exile in the host country. Available information indicated that the trial process had commenced, and the international community abandoned their demands to have the former president handed over to Europe for trial.
The International Criminal Court statute places the burden of proof on the state or the complaining party, not on the accused persons. Article 66(1)(2)(3) requires the state to furnish evidence against the persons whom it alleges to have committed a crime. Since international law is on a lower plane from a Ugandan legal perspective, the international community ought to tread carefully. Both Ugandan laws and international laws have a general presumption regarding the innocence of accused persons. Article 28(3)(a) of the Ugandan Constitution states that all accused persons are innocent until proven otherwise. By imposing sanctions, you undermine such a directive, which is why courts of law quickly grant bail to such accused persons when they apply for it in court since they are innocent in the eyes of the law for the crimes they are being accused of.
By the international community slapping sanctions on various government officials in Uganda, it could be construed as though they are already guilty as charged, which potentially jeopardizes Article 28(3)(a) of Uganda’s Constitution. President Museveni, through a number of correspondences shared on various media platforms, has shown political commitment as head of state regarding the issues at hand, making inquiries into the allegations about what is alleged to be the speaker’s house in the UK. This is a sufficient commitment, which perhaps has never been seen before.
Therefore, it would be legally proper to allow the local efforts on the same before jumping into the imposition of sanctions on these officials. When a person has dragged somebody to court, the general theory behind the trial of accused persons is to release accused persons if there is insufficient evidence or punish them if there is reasonable evidence against them. The international community should not usurp Uganda’s municipal mandate; allow local efforts to address the criminal allegations at hand. Conversely, how will the American and British governments react when Ugandan courts find the accused innocent or perhaps guilty?
Accused persons equally have various lines of defense that they can use to evade culpability in criminal trials. Such defenses can include claims of right, innocence, lack of jurisdiction by courts, among others. Impeachment is another process used to remove somebody from a high-profile position such as a president, speaker, or minister.
Steven Masiga, a researcher and writer from Mbale. Tel: 0782231577.
