No bias in Bukenya Chogm case—judiciary

By Henry Mukasa and Patience Kengoro

The judiciary has denied accusations that it selectively prosecuted former Vice-President, Prof. Gilbert Bukenya. 

It explained that the issues Bukenya raised in a Constitutional Court petition he filed against his prosecution were different from those of ministers Sam Kutesa, Mwesigwa Rukutana and John Nasasira.

In August 2011, Bukenya lost a petition that sought to block his prosecution, citing presidential immunity and unequal treatment with other ministers with whom he carried out the Chogm decisions.

He contended that the acting Inspectorate of Government (IGG), Raphael Baku, illegally charged him. 

Last Thursday, the Constitutional Court stopped Baku from prosecuting Kutesa, Nasasira and Rukutana over Chogm-related charges because the inspectorate is not fully constituted.

The ruling ignited debate with the media, political circles and the public questioning why Bukenya was prosecuted and the three “let off”. 

Judiciary spokesperson Elias Kisawuzi said the gist of Bukenya’s case was ‘presidential immunity’ in the sense that having been Vice-President, he sometimes acted as President and thus enjoyed immunity from prosecution.

“In the Bukenya case, the judges agreed that the office of the IGG was not fully constituted but they said Baku signed charges against Bukenya as deputy IGG, but he (Baku) did not go into the exhaustive functions of the IGG,” he explained.

Kisawuzi made the remarks while addressing journalists at the Media Centre in Kampala over the weekend.