Man accused of rape gets mandatory bail after delayed committal proceedings
In his ruling, Justice Paul Gadenya Paul held that Ekerire was constitutionally entitled to bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution because he had remained on remand beyond the 180-day constitutional limit for suspects charged with offences triable only by the High Court.
Man accused of rape gets mandatory bail after delayed committal proceedings
____________________
The High Court in Kampala has granted mandatory bail to David Ekerire, who is facing a rape charge, after finding that he had spent more than 180 days on remand without his case being committed for trial.
In his ruling, Justice Paul Gadenya Paul held that Ekerire was constitutionally entitled to bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution because he had remained on remand beyond the 180-day constitutional limit for suspects charged with offences triable only by the High Court.
The application arose from Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court, where Ekerire was charged with rape contrary to Sections 123 and 124 of the Penal Code Act.
Court records show that he was charged on May 8, 2024, and had remained on remand at Luzira Upper Prison awaiting committal to the High Court for trial.
The State, represented by Chief State Attorney Happiness Ainebyona, did not dispute that the applicant had been on remand for more than 180 days without committal.
The prosecution further argued that releasing the accused could compromise the safety of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses.
It also challenged the suitability of the sureties previously presented by the applicant, saying they had failed to produce valid identification documents.
Justice Gadenya rejected the prosecution’s arguments as grounds for denying mandatory bail, holding that once an accused person has remained on remand for more than 180 days without committal, the constitutional right to mandatory bail arises automatically.
The judge ruled that the seriousness of the offence or the severity of the possible sentence cannot override the constitutional guarantee under Article 23(6)(c), warning that doing so would render the provision meaningless, particularly in serious criminal cases that are exclusively tried by the High Court.
The court, however, agreed with the prosecution that the applicant’s earlier sureties were unsuitable because they lacked valid means of identification. Justice Gadenya directed that Ekerire must present fresh sureties with valid identification documents before his release.
The judge further observed that concerns about witness safety and the possibility of absconding can be addressed through strict bail conditions, including substantial sureties, regular reporting to court and a prohibition against contacting prosecution witnesses, rather than by denying bail altogether.
Gadenya noted that records before the court showed the applicant had exceeded the constitutional remand period on November 4, 2024, yet remained in custody without committal.
The judge emphasised that mandatory bail is a constitutional right and not a privilege granted at the discretion of the State.
He added that unlike ordinary discretionary bail, an applicant seeking mandatory bail is not required to prove exceptional circumstances such as ill health or advanced age.
According to the ruling, once the constitutional threshold has been met, the only issue left for the court is to determine reasonable bail conditions to secure the accused’s attendance at trial.