Besigye loses Kamdulu case

Oct 16, 2006

FORMER LRA commander Alfred Onen Kamdulu should testify against Dr. Kizza Besigye and 22 other treason suspects, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday. <br><br>besigye loses <br>kamdulu case

By Hillary Kiirya & Hillary Nasambu
FORMER LRA commander Alfred Onen Kamdulu should testify against Dr. Kizza Besigye and 22 other treason suspects, the Constitutional Court ruled yesterday.
The court said calling a self-confessed criminal as a witness was allowed by Section 137 of the Evidence Act.
“This section provides that an accomplice shall be a competent witness. We note with interest that the provision of an Act of Parliament that authorises the Act complained of is not being challenged. In light of this, the complaint does not fall within the ambit of Article 137(1)(3) of the Constitution,” the court ruled.
A five-member panel of judges, chaired by Justice Galdino Magellan Okello, was giving a ruling in a preliminary objection raised by the state on to whether there were issues for interpretation by the court. Besigye and his 22 co-accused persons filed the petition.
The other judges were Amos Twinomujuni, Christine Kitumba, Constance Kategaya Byamugisha and Steven Kavuma.
Besigye and his co-accused petitioned the Constitutional Court arguing that the Government had violated their rights by fielding Kamdulu and other self-confessed criminals to testify against them.
The petitioners, under trial before the High Court and the General Court Martial, are said to have engaged in treasonable acts under the Peoples’ Redemption Army rebel group.
Represented by David Mpanga, the suspects had argued that relying on evidence of self-confessed criminals contravened the Constitution.
They said to do so would be an abuse of the court process and that the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) should not call them as witnesses.
However, the court agreed with Oscar Kambona, of Kampala Associated Advocates, who represented the DPP, that everyone, including self-confessed criminals, can be witnesses.
Kambona was quoting the Evidence Act. He said accordingly, the DPP relied on the evidence of witnesses like Jeniffer Aryem, George Abedo and Kamdulu though they were accomplices.
The lawyer said public interest and ensuring justice required that criminals are brought to justice using all evidence to prove their guilt.
He said in any case, admissibility of evidence whether of an accomplice or of any other witness, was at the discretion of the trial judge.
He said without challenging the constitutionality of the Evidence Act, the petitioners could not challenge the evidence adduced according to its provisions. Immediately after the ruling, court proceeded to hear whether the continued detention of the 22 suspects violated the constitution.
The court will rule on the case on notice.
Ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});