The High Court in Kampala has issued a production warrant, compelling the officers in charge of Kitalya, Luzira, Kigo, and Nakasongola prisons to present lawyer Eron Kiiza for his bail application hearing next week.
According to the order, signed by High Court Assistant Registrar Criminal Division Godfrey Ngobi Ssalaamu, and seen by URN, the prisons are directed to deliver Kiiza to Justice Michael Elubu on March 25th at 9:00 am without fail.
Kiiza, who was recently jailed, applied for bail approximately three weeks ago. He asserts a fixed residence in Central Kiwatule Zone, Nakawa Division, Kampala, within the High Court’s jurisdiction. He also presented three sureties: his wife, Sylvia Tumwebaze, an Archives and Data Manager at Hima Cement; Dr. Busingye Kabumba, a Makerere University law lecturer; and Primah Kwagala, Executive Director of Women’s Probono Initiative.
Kiiza argues that his imprisonment harms his parental and professional responsibilities, as he is the sole partner at Kiiza and Mugisha Company Advocates and has three young children. He also cites his good conduct and the likelihood of success in his pending appeal.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), through Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo, opposes Kiiza’s bail. Kyomuhendo argues that Kiiza, as an advocate, should have upheld court decorum and protected the court’s dignity. Kyomuhendo states that “the conviction reflects the need to protect the court process and underscores the necessity for a restrictive stance on bail in such matters.”
The DPP’s opposition is based on 11 grounds, challenging Kiiza to strictly prove his allegations. Kyomuhendo also argues that Kiiza’s appeal should be heard by the Court Martial Appeals Court, not the High Court. He cites the Supreme Court’s decree in Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2021, stating it applies to civilians under specific sections of the UPDF Act, not advocates in contempt of court under different sections.
Kyomuhendo contends that Kiiza has not shown exceptional circumstances for bail and that his sureties are not substantial, living in different locations and unable to control him. “In reply to the Applicant’s list of sureties, it is our considered submission that they are not substantial. For instance, on the issue of place of abode, all the three sureties presented by the Applicant do not adduce evidence to show whether they are tenants or landlords. They further show that they live in different locations and therefore incapable to compelling the Applicant to attend Court,” Kyomuhendo stated.
Prosecutors also argue that Kiiza’s appeal is frivolous and outside the High Court’s jurisdiction, stating, “That in further reply thereto, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law, and this Court has no jurisdiction to hear and grant an application for bail pending appeal before the Court Martial Appeal Court.”
The DPP disputes Kiiza’s claim of appeal delays due to court backlogs, asserting the High Court’s efficiency.
Therefore, the DPP urges the court to deny bail, emphasizing the need to uphold court decorum and integrity.