Court dismisses Kitutu appeal over Karamoja iron sheets case
A panel comprising Justices Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Christopher Gashirabake and Moses Kazibwe Kawumi held that the two cases involve different transactions, allegations, accused persons, evidence and periods of alleged offending.
Former Karamoja Affairs minister Mary Goretti Kitutu. (File photo)
_____________
The Court of Appeal has dismissed former Karamoja Affairs minister Mary Goretti Kitutu Kimono’s appeal challenging her prosecution in two separate criminal cases arising from investigations into the management of the Karamoja supplementary budget.
A panel comprising Justices Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Christopher Gashirabake and Moses Kazibwe Kawumi held that the two cases involve different transactions, allegations, accused persons, evidence and periods of alleged offending.
The judges on Friday, September 18, upheld the decision of the High Court Anti-Corruption Division, which rejected Kitutu’s application seeking to have the two cases consolidated.
Kitutu had argued that the separate prosecutions by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the Inspectorate of Government (IGG) amounted to the fragmentation of a single criminal transaction and violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing.
She further argued that the parallel proceedings subjected her to additional expenses and amounted to an abuse of the prosecutorial process.
However, in a judgment delivered by Justice Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, the Court of Appeal found that the two cases arose from different criminal conduct.
The first case, High Court Criminal Case No. HCT-00-AC-0005-2023, was instituted by the DPP and relates principally to allegations concerning the procurement, diversion and receipt of iron sheets under the Karamoja Community Empowerment Programme.
The second case, HCT-00-AC-0056-2023, was instituted by the IGG and concerns alleged financial loss and corruption arising from the management of supplementary funds allocated for peace-building, disarmament, monitoring and administrative activities under the Karamoja Programme.
In that case, Kitutu and her co-accused face charges of causing financial loss involving Sh1.55b and corruption involving Sh2.23b.
Justice Kawumi said although the two prosecutions arose from public expenditure under the Karamoja supplementary programme, the allegations were materially different.
“The mere fact that both prosecutions arose from expenditure under the same supplementary budget does not convert them into one criminal transaction,” he held.
The court noted that the cases involved different expenditure items, factual allegations, co-accused persons, periods of alleged offending and legal ingredients.
It further held that the fact that some documentary evidence may overlap was not sufficient reason to order the cases to be joined.
According to the judgment, joinder of criminal charges depends on whether the offences are founded on the same facts or form part of the same transaction or series of transactions, rather than merely arising from the same public programme.
The judges also rejected Kitutu’s argument that the separate investigations by the DPP and IGG amounted to an abuse of process.
Justice Kawumi said there was no evidence that the IGG had reopened or duplicated investigations that had already resulted in the charges brought by the DPP.
The court also dismissed Kitutu’s claim that the summonses, search measures and burden of defending two criminal cases had infringed her right to a fair hearing.
The judges found that Kitutu had not demonstrated any actual prejudice or shown that her ability to prepare for and defend herself in either case had been impaired.
The court further held that the additional expenses incurred in defending separate prosecutions could not, by themselves, amount to a constitutional violation where the prosecutions concerned distinct criminal conduct.
The court also overruled a preliminary objection by the respondents that the appeal was incompetent because it had not been determined within three months as required under the Human Rights Enforcement Act.
Justice Kawumi held that the three-month period was a directive to the court and that failure to comply with it did not automatically deprive the court of jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal consequently dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court’s judgment and orders in Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2024.
Each party was ordered to bear its own costs of the appeal.