High Court grants bail to aggravated robbery suspect
"The purpose of mandatory bail is that once one hundred and eighty days have passed without committal, the applicant need show nothing more than the fact that the constitutional period has lapsed," the judge observed.
In a ruling delivered on July 7, 2026, Justice Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa held that Nsereko's prolonged detention violated the constitutional timelines governing pretrial detention for offences triable only by the High Court.
KAMPALA - The High Court Criminal Division has granted mandatory bail to Abdul Nsereko, who is facing charges of aggravated robbery and attempted murder, after finding that he had been held on remand for more than one year without his case being committed to the High Court for trial.
In a ruling delivered on July 7, 2026, Justice Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa held that Nsereko's prolonged detention violated the constitutional timelines governing pretrial detention for offences triable only by the High Court.
The judge ruled that once an accused person has remained on remand for more than 180 days without being committed to the High Court, the Constitution requires the court to release that person on bail on reasonable conditions.
Nsereko is charged with aggravated robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act and attempted murder contrary to Section 204(a) of the Penal Code Act.
According to court records, the charges arise from an alleged incident that occurred on June 14, 2024, along the Bwaise-Nabweru Road in Kawempe Division, Kampala District. However, the ruling does not contain particulars of the offence.
He first appeared before the Nabweru Chief Magistrate's Court on July 3, 2024, and has remained on remand at Luzira Upper Prison ever since because the case had not been committed to the High Court for trial.
Nsereko applied to the High Court seeking mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, Sections 14 and 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act and the Judicature (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) (Practice) Directions, 2022.
Justice Wolimbwa observed that although the applicant had mistakenly cited Article 23(6)(b) instead of Article 23(6)(c), the error was merely technical and did not affect the court's jurisdiction or prejudice the prosecution.
He, therefore, treated the application as one properly brought under Article 23(6)(c).
Justice Wolimbwa relied on several Constitutional Court decisions, including Foundation for Human Rights Initiative versus Attorney General, Tumushabe versus Attorney General, and Uganda versus Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye, which held that the provision is mandatory and leaves the court with no discretion to refuse bail once the constitutional requirements have been met.
He noted that the constitutional safeguard exists to prevent suspects from remaining in custody indefinitely while investigations or committal proceedings drag on.
"The purpose of mandatory bail is that once one hundred and eighty days have passed without committal, the applicant need show nothing more than the fact that the constitutional period has lapsed," the judge observed.
Justice Wolimbwa rejected the prosecution's argument that the seriousness of the charges and the possibility that the accused could abscond should justify continued detention.
He held that although aggravated robbery and attempted murder are serious offences carrying severe penalties upon conviction, the gravity of the charges cannot defeat a constitutional entitlement.
Instead, he said, such concerns are addressed by imposing strict bail conditions rather than denying bail altogether.
The judge also dismissed the state's contention that Nsereko had failed to establish a fixed place of residence because he had not produced a certificate of title or utility bills.
He ruled that neither the Constitution nor the Bail Guidelines require an accused person to own the premises where they live.
Justice Wolimbwa found that evidence presented before the court showed that the applicant resides in Kasangati, Kiwalimu Zone, Wakiso District, which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court and, therefore, satisfied the legal requirement of having a known place of abode.
Justice Wolimbwa found that Maurisia Nayiga, the applicant's mother, and Henrical Male, his brother, were substantial sureties known within their respective communities.
The judge said their close family relationship with the applicant strengthened their ability to ensure that he complies with the bail conditions and attends court whenever required.
The judge directed that the responsibilities of the sureties be fully explained to them before they execute the required bond documents.
The prosecution had argued that releasing Nsereko could interfere with ongoing investigations.
However, Justice Wolimbwa said the allegation was not supported by evidence.
He noted that the State had not identified any witness, who had been approached or intimidated, nor had it shown that the applicant had interfered with evidence during his detention.
"The apprehension was expressed at a general level, without particulars of any witness approached or evidence disturbed," the judge ruled.
Nevertheless, the court prohibited Nsereko from interfering with prosecution witnesses or investigations in any manner while on bail.
Justice Wolimbwa emphasised that although the Constitution guarantees mandatory bail after prolonged detention, the conditions attached to the release must still ensure the accused's attendance throughout the criminal proceedings.
He, therefore, imposed stringent bail conditions after balancing the seriousness of the charges with the constitutional presumption of innocence and the applicant's right to liberty.