COURT | GEN. SEJUSA | AIDES

KAMPALA - A case in which six aides of former Coordinator of Military Intelligence Gen. David Sejjusa are seeking an award of sh42b for malicious prosecution has flopped because the registrar was attending a conference.

They sued the Attorney General, who is the main legal adviser to Government, demanding the money for also wrongful arrest, false imprisonment and defamation, in the Civil Division of the High Court.

The plaintiffs, Grace Nasasira, Godfrey Karuhanga, Frank Ninsiima, Moses Nuwagaba, Abel Twinamatsiko and James Nayebare, were due to appear on Tuesday before assistant registrar Agnes Alum, to have their case given a date on which will be heard.

They say state security operatives portrayed them as people who intended to overthrow the government on trumped-up charges of treachery and aiding others to commit the offence.

The plaintiffs also want to be awarded the money in order to deter security operatives from such similar actions in the future. 

They also want interest in the award and costs of the suit.

Arrest

Court documents indicate that on May 5, 2013, Nasasira and Karuhanga were arrested from a Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) barracks at Makajjo-Mityana by Special Forces Command and Policemen.

Thereafter, they were taken to Nakasero State House SFC detach and later transferred to a safe house in Ntinda, where they were allegedly tortured and detained for two days without trial.

Meanwhile, on the same day, security operatives arrested Nuwagaba and Nayebare at City Square Restaurant in Kampala and took them to a safe house in Ntinda as well.

The plaintiffs say from Ntinda, they were taken to Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI), where they also spent two days before being transferred to Makindye Military Police barracks.

“At the time of arrest, the plaintiffs were not informed of what charges or the suspicion of what crime they were being arrested and they did not know the reason of their arrest,” reads part of the court documents.

Court

The plaintiffs were subsequently charged before the General Court Martial (GCM) on May 28, 2013, with Treachery and aiding and abetting commission of the offence.

Prosecution presented seven witnesses, who the plaintiffs purport contradicted themselves, in addition to failure to adduce documentary evidence.

Prosecution had argued that the convicts between April and May 2013 engaged in subversive activities when they planned to recruit fellow soldiers from the Special Command with intent to overthrow the government.

The accused, according to prosecution, were agents of Gen. David Sejjusa, Gen Benon Biraro and Brig. Wasswa Balikalege.

But the plaintiffs, however, contend that prosecution never proved its theory because the Generals were never charged or brought as state witnesses.

“It was irrational, illogical, malicious and illegal to charge, try and convict the agents when the alleged principals were not,” their lawyers from Mushabe, Munungu and Company Advocates contend.

Sentence

In 2016, the plaintiffs were convicted and sentenced to 15-years-imprisonment by the army court.

On January 29, 2018, they appealed against the decision at Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC), which upheld the decision.

This prompted the plaintiffs to run to the Court of Appeal, which set aside the sentence and freed them.

The plaintiffs contend that prosecution on appeal conceded that they had no credible evidence to prosecute them, after spending seven years and four months in prison.

They purport that their prosecution before the army courts was illegal and malicious as the state had no evidence to support the flimsy and fabricated allegations framed against them.

“As a result of malicious prosecution, the plaintiffs lost earnings for their families and were treated to psychological trauma,” a court document indicates.

The plaintiffs say since then they have not been able to secure employment to support their families.

The six further claim that they were separated from their wives, who got re-married to other men when they are in prison.

They also contend that the malicious prosecution was arbitrary, oppressive, and/or unconstitutional, for which they seek damages.