Col. Dick Bugingo sentence not light
<b>By Felix Kulayigye</b><br><br>There have been mixed reactions to the sentence handed down on Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo by the Division Court Martial. Lt. Col. Bugingo was tried by a military court as established by law under the UPDF Act 2005 for slapping FDC leader Maj. (rtd) Rubaramira Ruranga.
By Felix Kulayigye
There have been mixed reactions to the sentence handed down on Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo by the Division Court Martial. Lt. Col. Bugingo was tried by a military court as established by law under the UPDF Act 2005 for slapping FDC leader Maj. (rtd) Rubaramira Ruranga.
The Act establishes military courts that include, in ascending order, the Unit Disciplinary Committee, Division Court Martial, Field Court Martial, General Court Martial and Court Martial Appeals Court. In exercising their judicial duties, these courts are at liberty to evoke both military and civil laws.
In the case of Uganda versus Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo, the Division Court Martial for General Headquarters sitting at Bombo tried the accused under Section 235 of the Penal Code Act which provides for assault.
Assault is therein defined as a misdemeanour, which is defined by the Oxford Contemporary English Dictionary as “a minor offence that is less than robbery or murder.†Section 235 of the Penal Code Act says that on conviction, the accused shall be sentenced to anything up to a maximum of one year’s imprisonment. Ordinarily Lt. Col. Bugingo would have been tried by a Unit Disciplinary Committee because this is a minor offence, but due to his seniority it was imperative that a senior court martial tries him. There have been choruses of disagreement from some quarters of the public over the sentence.
At a glance, the punishment of severe reprimand given to Lt. Col. Bugingo may appear lenient, but hold until you read this: The convicted officer’s file has been stained or tainted by this blemish of conviction and this has far reaching consequences on his carrier development. Usually the sentence is entered in the officer’s personal file. This has an effect on his career development in that any considerations like promotion are affected because once the file is consulted, that record partly or wholly influences the decision of the Promotions Board.
The gravity of the punishment is reflected in suspension from his office. He has not gone back to his office and this goes with the privileges that were attached to this office. This means that he has no authority and the privileges he was enjoying as a commanding officer are no more. He no longer sits in the Army Council because he is no longer a commanding officer. He was also a member of the national election security committee but he won’t sit there anymore.
It is true that some officers accused of certain offences are arrested before they are taken to court. Lt. Col. Bugingo was not arrested because of his senior rank. Usually we arrest senior officers only if the offence committed is grave. In this case it was a minor offence and there was no fear that he could run away.
The cardinal principle of our army is good relationship with the civilian community and other government forces. It is not the arsenal that we possess that makes us strong but the good relationship with the population.
As long as the case is reported to UPDF authorities, we have punished our soldiers. I know of a situation where an officer was punished for just pushing a civilian.
In the case of the journalists who alleged that they were assaulted by Lt. Col. Bugingo a few years ago, they did not report to the army. They opted to report to Police and the matter was taken to court so we did not have to interfere with the matter which was in court. If the army took action on a matter of an officer who has already been settled by another court, it would mean punishing him twice for one offence which amounts to double jeopardy. For the case of Maj. Rubaramira Ruranga, the matter was still being investigated by Police and had not yet reached court. This punishment is purely part of our professional and ethical method of work and there is nothing political about it. We have existed before this political atmosphere and we shall still be here even after the elections and we emphasise good relationship with the population.
It is not correct to report that Lt. Col. Bugingo was merely cautioned. A caution and a reprimand are two different sentences. It is imperative to realise that punishments against assault could include a caution (the least severe sentence), a warning, a serious warning, last warning, a reprimand and a severe reprimand, in ascending order of weight. There is also suspension from service and imprisonment for one year as the maximum sentence.
Conviction and sentences are all determined by factors such as evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence as well as any mitigating circumstances that the defence may submit to the trial court. In this particular case, the court also had the option of sentencing the accused to six months suspension or imprisonment for one year. These are maximum sentences that depend on circumstances in which the offence was committed. The chairman of the Division Court Martial has the prerogative of handing down any of these sentences depending on his/her understanding of the circumstances surrounding the matter. With the defence team of Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo submitting convincingly that the accused had acted in extremely provocative circumstances, court awarded a fifth level punishment — severe reprimand.
In this case the officer will be matched to the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) by an officer superior to him — a Colonel or Brigadier. The officer will therefore appear before the CDF and will be reprimanded severely: A form is signed by both the appointing authority and the convict and goes on the file of the convicted officer. It should be understood that any consideration for promotion, training and deployment is usually informed by the information on the officer’s file.
There have been mixed reactions to the sentence handed down on Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo by the Division Court Martial. Lt. Col. Bugingo was tried by a military court as established by law under the UPDF Act 2005 for slapping FDC leader Maj. (rtd) Rubaramira Ruranga.
The Act establishes military courts that include, in ascending order, the Unit Disciplinary Committee, Division Court Martial, Field Court Martial, General Court Martial and Court Martial Appeals Court. In exercising their judicial duties, these courts are at liberty to evoke both military and civil laws.
In the case of Uganda versus Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo, the Division Court Martial for General Headquarters sitting at Bombo tried the accused under Section 235 of the Penal Code Act which provides for assault.
Assault is therein defined as a misdemeanour, which is defined by the Oxford Contemporary English Dictionary as “a minor offence that is less than robbery or murder.†Section 235 of the Penal Code Act says that on conviction, the accused shall be sentenced to anything up to a maximum of one year’s imprisonment. Ordinarily Lt. Col. Bugingo would have been tried by a Unit Disciplinary Committee because this is a minor offence, but due to his seniority it was imperative that a senior court martial tries him. There have been choruses of disagreement from some quarters of the public over the sentence.
At a glance, the punishment of severe reprimand given to Lt. Col. Bugingo may appear lenient, but hold until you read this: The convicted officer’s file has been stained or tainted by this blemish of conviction and this has far reaching consequences on his carrier development. Usually the sentence is entered in the officer’s personal file. This has an effect on his career development in that any considerations like promotion are affected because once the file is consulted, that record partly or wholly influences the decision of the Promotions Board.
The gravity of the punishment is reflected in suspension from his office. He has not gone back to his office and this goes with the privileges that were attached to this office. This means that he has no authority and the privileges he was enjoying as a commanding officer are no more. He no longer sits in the Army Council because he is no longer a commanding officer. He was also a member of the national election security committee but he won’t sit there anymore.
It is true that some officers accused of certain offences are arrested before they are taken to court. Lt. Col. Bugingo was not arrested because of his senior rank. Usually we arrest senior officers only if the offence committed is grave. In this case it was a minor offence and there was no fear that he could run away.
The cardinal principle of our army is good relationship with the civilian community and other government forces. It is not the arsenal that we possess that makes us strong but the good relationship with the population.
As long as the case is reported to UPDF authorities, we have punished our soldiers. I know of a situation where an officer was punished for just pushing a civilian.
In the case of the journalists who alleged that they were assaulted by Lt. Col. Bugingo a few years ago, they did not report to the army. They opted to report to Police and the matter was taken to court so we did not have to interfere with the matter which was in court. If the army took action on a matter of an officer who has already been settled by another court, it would mean punishing him twice for one offence which amounts to double jeopardy. For the case of Maj. Rubaramira Ruranga, the matter was still being investigated by Police and had not yet reached court. This punishment is purely part of our professional and ethical method of work and there is nothing political about it. We have existed before this political atmosphere and we shall still be here even after the elections and we emphasise good relationship with the population.
It is not correct to report that Lt. Col. Bugingo was merely cautioned. A caution and a reprimand are two different sentences. It is imperative to realise that punishments against assault could include a caution (the least severe sentence), a warning, a serious warning, last warning, a reprimand and a severe reprimand, in ascending order of weight. There is also suspension from service and imprisonment for one year as the maximum sentence.
Conviction and sentences are all determined by factors such as evidence adduced by the prosecution and the defence as well as any mitigating circumstances that the defence may submit to the trial court. In this particular case, the court also had the option of sentencing the accused to six months suspension or imprisonment for one year. These are maximum sentences that depend on circumstances in which the offence was committed. The chairman of the Division Court Martial has the prerogative of handing down any of these sentences depending on his/her understanding of the circumstances surrounding the matter. With the defence team of Lt. Col. Dick Bugingo submitting convincingly that the accused had acted in extremely provocative circumstances, court awarded a fifth level punishment — severe reprimand.
In this case the officer will be matched to the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) by an officer superior to him — a Colonel or Brigadier. The officer will therefore appear before the CDF and will be reprimanded severely: A form is signed by both the appointing authority and the convict and goes on the file of the convicted officer. It should be understood that any consideration for promotion, training and deployment is usually informed by the information on the officer’s file.