Court exonerates Speaker Among of money laundering accusations

KAMPALA - The Anti-Corruption Court has cleared the Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among, of corruption and money laundering accusations.

In a ruling dated April 25 this year, High Court Judge Lawrence Gidudu found that lawyer Male Mabirizi’s complaint against her lacked merit.

Among is also the Bukedea district woman Member of Parliament (MP).

“After reviewing the record and the law applicable, it is my finding that the appeal has no merit. The complaint was subjected to police investigation and found to be alarmist. There was no credible evidence to sustain the proposed charges. As a result, the appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed,” Gidudu ruled.

While Mabirizi, in his appeal, faulted the chief magistrate for failing to draw up the charge sheet and subsequently summon Among to answer the charges, Justice Gidudu explained that a private prosecutor cannot file a weak complaint and then ask the court to issue orders to gather more evidence to support their claim.

Gidudu stated that when a complaint is filed, the magistrate must verify the allegations as they appear in the complaint.

The magistrate may request the police to investigate the allegations, but it is not a requirement for the complainant to participate in the investigation or even be heard because it is not a civil matter.

Given that money laundering is a complex offence requiring investigations beyond the capacity of a private prosecutor, the judge opined that such complaints should be directed to the police or the Inspectorate of Government, who have the legal authority, resources, and expertise to gather the necessary evidence.

“It is not appropriate to involve a magistrate in the investigation process of a criminal offence and then expect such a magistrate to remain neutral during the trial. There should be a clear law for that to happen; otherwise, allegations of bias would arise. A court should try cases investigated by other agencies, not by itself, unless a specific law allows it,” Justice Gidudu noted.

Gidudu further explained that the participation of a magistrate in gathering evidence to support the complaint before drawing up charges is not backed by any provision in section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act, which empowers the magistrate to investigate complaints from intending private prosecutors.

Justifying his decision, Gidudu pointed out that Mabirizi failed to show that he had filed a complaint with either the police, the Inspectorate of Government, or the State House Anti-Corruption unit, and that they had refused, ignored, or shown reluctance to investigate the complaint.

Gidudu clarified that once a complainant files their complaint, they should leave it to the court to decide.

“The complainant should not and must never tell a magistrate how to decide the case. It is assumed that by the time the complainant files a complaint, they have gathered enough information to support the charges,” Justice Gidudu noted.

Lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi

“The magistrate is required to verify those allegations first. It is, therefore, a misconception for the appellant (Mabirizi) to argue that his affidavit was enough for the magistrate to draw charges and prosecute the accused without input from any other authority. That is against the law of private prosecution under section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act,” Gidudu added.

Justice Gidudu also observed that under section 42 of the Magistrates Court Act, there is no provision for a private prosecutor whose complaint has not been validated by the magistrate to make an application for additional evidence to support their claim, as there are no inherent powers in criminal law like in civil suits.

On February 9 this year, the Anti-Corruption Court Chief Magistrate, Joan Aciro, dismissed Mabirizi's complaint in which he sought to have Among summoned to answer charges of corruption and money laundering.

The dismissal was based on a police report dated December 6, 2024, which indicated that the complaint was investigated on the request of the magistrate, but no evidence of corruption or money laundering was found.

Dissatisfied with the ruling, Mabirizi filed an appeal.

Genesis of the case

In August last year, Mabirizi wrote to the Anti-Corruption Court Chief Magistrate requesting her to draft a charge sheet, accusing Among of engaging in corruption and money laundering activities.

Mabirizi alleged that between 2016 and 2023, in Kampala and Bukedea district, Among intentionally acquired, processed, used, or administered property, including a palatial residence at Mackinnon Road, a house in Minister’s Village in Ntinda, and Sky Hotel International, knowing these properties were proceeds of crime, specifically corruption.

Among’s other alleged assets linked to corruption, according to Mabirizi, include her residence at Areere village, Kamutur sub-county in Bukedea district, a Toyota Land Cruiser V8 (registration number UBJ 005U), a Mercedes Benz with personalised registration numbers AAA1 and AAA2, and a Range Rover with personalised registration number AAA3.