Court dismisses Mabirizi’s appeal over private prosecution of Muhoozi, 17 others
The ruling arose from a complaint Mabirizi filed on February 8, 2024, alleging that the respondents had launched, managed or assisted in managing the PLU at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, Kampala, on February 7, 2024.
Court dismisses Mabirizi’s appeal over private prosecution of Muhoozi, 17 others
____________________
The High Court has summarily dismissed an appeal by lawyer Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka challenging the refusal to issue criminal summonses against the Chief of Defence Forces, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, and 17 other respondents over the launch and management of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU).
In a ruling delivered on October 20, 2026, High Court Criminal Division judge Justice Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa upheld a decision by Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court to reject Mabirizi’s private criminal complaint and decline to issue summonses against the 18 respondents.
The respondents include Muhoozi, Mike Mukula, Frank Tumwebaze, Magret Muhanga, Harriet Ntabazi, Godfrey Baluku Kabbyanga, Haruna Kasolo Kyeyune, Michael Mawanda Maranga, David Kabanda, Kisos Abdi Fadhil Chemaswet, Alex Ruhunda, Mapenduzi Ojara, Jimmy Lwanga, Mzee Twaha Kagabo, Fred Muhangi, Simon Muyanga Lutaaya, Cedric Babu Ndirima and Balam Ateenyi Barugahare.
Justice Wolimbwa ruled that Mabirizi’s complaint and supporting affidavit did not provide sufficient factual details to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences or link the respondents to their commission.
The judge said the appeal did not raise an arguable question of law warranting a further hearing under section 32(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act.
“The appeal is dismissed summarily under Section 32(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act,” the judge ordered.
The ruling arose from a complaint Mabirizi filed on February 8, 2024, alleging that the respondents had launched, managed or assisted in managing the PLU at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, Kampala, on February 7, 2024.
Mabirizi’s proposed charges included managing an unlawful society, conspiracy to commit a felony, holding out as a member of an unlawful society, and making a speech likely or intended to encourage support for an unlawful society.
However, on May 24, 2024, Nakawa Chief Magistrate Frank Namanya rejected the complaint without issuing criminal summonses against the respondents.
Mabirizi subsequently appealed, arguing that the magistrate had wrongly relied on information obtained through consultation with local administrators and had disregarded his sworn affidavit detailing the alleged offences.
In dismissing the appeal, Justice Wolimbwa said a person seeking a private prosecution must provide a factual account that, on its face, discloses an offence and connects the proposed accused to it.
The judge noted that a complainant was not required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt or present all witnesses before summonses could be issued. However, the complaint had to contain sufficient facts to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences.
Justice Wolimbwa found that Mabirizi’s affidavit stated that the respondents had participated in launching or managing the organisation, but did not specify the individual acts that constituted the alleged offences.
On the charge of managing an unlawful society, the judge said the complaint did not sufficiently establish the organisation’s alleged unlawful character or detail the managerial acts attributed to the respondents.
Regarding conspiracy, Wolimbwa said; "the affidavit did not identify an agreement, arrangement or conduct from which it could reasonably be inferred that the respondents shared a criminal intention."
The judge also found that the complaint did not identify the person alleged to have made a speech in support of the organisation or provide sufficient details about the speech.
Justice Wolimbwa further observed that the alleged participation in launching the organisation and its stated political objective did not, by themselves, establish that the organisation had an unlawful purpose.
He said the fact that a serving military officer was allegedly associated with political ambitions did not automatically make an organisation unlawful.
The judge added that although a magistrate could direct police to investigate a private complaint under section 42(7) of the Magistrate's Courts Act, the law did not require investigations to be ordered whenever a complaint failed to disclose an offence.
According to Walimbwa, the magistrate was not obliged to search for evidence or construct a criminal case that the complainant had not adequately presented.
On consultation with local administrators, Justice Wolimbwa said a magistrate could consider information obtained during the process but had to independently assess the complaint.
The judge noted that the local administrator's lack of knowledge about the alleged meeting did not establish that it had not taken place. "However, accepting that the meeting occurred did not resolve the deficiencies in the complaint."
The judge also rejected the argument that the affidavit had to be accepted as sufficient, merely because it was sworn and had not been challenged by the respondents, who had not been formally summoned.
Justice Wolimbwa confirmed the magistrate’s decision of May 24, 2024, rejected the application for criminal summonses and declined to order further investigations or a rehearing.