Court grants Mabirizi mandatory bail
Lawyer Male Mabirizi has been granted mandatory bail by the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court after the court found that he had exceeded the 60-day statutory remand period without his trial commencing.
Male Mabilizi, counsel, appears before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court in Kampala during his bail ruling on August 21, 2026. (Photo by Barbara Kabahumuza)
______________
The Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court has granted lawyer Male Mabirizi mandatory bail after finding that he had spent more than 60 days on remand without his trial commencing.
On Friday, August 21, 2026, Chief Magistrate Ritah Neumbe Kidasa granted Mabirizi a cash bail of sh2m.
The court ordered Mabirizi to provide two substantial sureties, each with a valid national identity card, who will execute a non-cash bond of sh5m.
The court further ordered Mabirizi, through his sureties, to provide details of his permanent place of abode for verification by an officer appointed by the court.
He was also ordered to deposit his passport with court and not leave Uganda without written permission pending the conclusion of the trial.
But Mabirizi told court that he does not have a passport, prompting the magistrate to ask him why he had not provided evidence to support the claim.
The court also ordered Mabirizi not to directly or indirectly interfere with prosecution witnesses and directed him to attend court in person on every date to which the case is adjourned or fixed for hearing.
Kidasa said failure to comply with the bail conditions would result in cancellation of his bail.
The magistrate based the decision on Article 23(6) of the Constitution and Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which provide for mandatory bail where an accused person has spent more than 60 days on remand before commencement of trial, except for specified offences.
Mabirizi has been in custody continuously since February 3, 2026, initially in Criminal Case No. 52 of 2026 and later in the present case, Criminal Case No. 184 of 2026.
The court found that the period of his continuous pre-trial remand had exceeded 60 days by a considerable margin.
Kidasa said the offences Mabirizi is facing do not fall within the exceptional category under Section 75(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act.
However, the court rejected Mabirizi’s application seeking dismissal of the case for want of prosecution.
Mabirizi had argued that the case should be dismissed because the two complainants had not personally attended court.
But the magistrate held that the prosecution was being conducted by the Director of Public Prosecutions and that the complainants were prospective witnesses and not the prosecutors of the case.
She said their absence from mention hearings before the commencement of evidence did not amount to want of prosecution.
The court said the case should now proceed to hearing without further delay.
Mabirizi is facing three charges arising from alleged TikTok publications concerning Chief Justice Flavian Zeija and Court of Appeal Justice Musa Ssekaana.
The prosecution alleges that in January 2026, Mabirizi used his TikTok account, @male.mabirizi, accessed through Airtel Uganda’s telecommunications platform, to publish an audio-visual news story in which he described Zeija as a conman, fraudster, corrupt and a file grabber.
He is also alleged to have stated that Zeija sold off his property to pay a bribe for his appointment as Chief Justice, an allegation the prosecution says was false.
Mabirizi, according to prosecution also published another audio-visual news story in which he described Justice Ssekaana as a conman and fraudster.
He is also accused of broadcasting the content through his TikTok account without a licence issued by the Uganda Communications Commission.
The charges comprise two counts of publishing fake news contrary to Regulation 110(e) of the Uganda Communications (Licensing) Regulations, 2019, and one count of broadcasting without a licence contrary to Section 28(1) and (2) of the Uganda Communications Act.
Mabirizi was initially charged on February 3, 2026, under the Computer Misuse Act with hate speech and malicious information over the same TikTok publication.
The case was withdrawn on April 1, 2026, after the Constitutional Court declared the provisions of the Computer Misuse Act under which he had been charged null and void on grounds that they had been enacted without compliance with parliamentary rules.
Mabirizi challenged the new charges, arguing, among other things, that the Buganda Road court lacked territorial jurisdiction, the Communications Act did not apply to TikTok, the charges violated freedom of expression and were vague, and that the 2019 licensing regulations were invalid.
The magistrate overruled the objections, holding that the issues raised could be considered during the trial and determined on the basis of evidence.
Mabirizi argued that the fresh prosecution violated his constitutional protection against being tried twice over the same matter.
The court dismissed the plea, holding that the earlier case had not ended in an acquittal or conviction following a trial.
The magistrate said the earlier case was withdrawn after the law creating the offences was declared invalid and therefore did not amount to an acquittal.
The court also found no evidence on the record that the DPP had acted in bad faith or used successive prosecutions to harass Mabirizi.
The magistrate further declined two notices seeking references to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5) of the Constitution.
She held that the questions raised either concerned the application of settled constitutional principles or complaints about the conduct of proceedings, rather than fresh questions requiring constitutional interpretation.
The court also directed that further proceedings in the case be conducted in chambers.
Kidasa said the direction followed sustained social media commentary surrounding the case, including personalised attacks against judicial and prosecutorial officers and the complainants.
She said the arrangement was temporary and could be reviewed by the court or upon application by either party.
The court said the direction would not prevent access to the official court record, rulings or judgments delivered in the case.
The court dismissed Mabirizi’s objections, plea of double jeopardy and applications for constitutional references and directed that Criminal Case No. 184 of 2026 proceed to hearing.