Lawyer Steven Kalali has petitioned the Chief Inspector of Courts seeking answers on the delay in hearing his case challenging bail guidelines issued by the Chief Justice, nearly two years after it was filed.
On October 20, 2022, Kalali filed a constitutional petition challenging the bail guidelines and directives issued by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo on July 27, 2022.
The guidelines in question restrict the power to grant bail to the High Court, despite the Constitution stating that any court can grant bail to a suspect who has spent over 180 days on remand without committal.
Kalali claims in his petition to the Constitutional Court, that this restriction is an amendment to the Constitution, which only Parliament has the power to do.
The guidelines also require the clerk of lower courts to prepare case files and send them to the High Court registrar, who then forwards them to a High Court judge for consideration.
Kalali believes that this process infringes on the rights to liberty and the presumption of innocence, which are enshrined in Chapter 4 of the Constitution.
He further states that the guidelines are unconstitutional and that Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo exceeded his powers by making provisions related to mandatory bail in capital offenses, which is a legislative function of Parliament.
Additionally, Kalali argues that the guidelines were issued without sufficient public participation, which the Constitution requires for decisions that affect individual rights.
He is seeking a declaration from the Constitutional Court that the guidelines are unconstitutional and should be quashed.
However, since the filing of the petition, it has never been heard.
In his complaint, Kalali states that he attached more than 200 Affidavits of inmates from different prisons who have clocked mandatory bail but could not be released and are in continued detention without being committed to the High Court.
‘That I have with the help of my lawyers of M/S Ochieng Associated Advocates and Solicitors made several follow-ups with the Deputy Chief Justice as President of the Constitutional Court over the expeditious hearing of the said matter owing to its urgency since 2022 the matter having been already conferenced but all in vain despite court writing to us promising to hear it as soon as possible “, reads the petition.
Kalali argues that to his surprise, other constitutional petitions that were filed in 2023 after his such as the petition against the Anti Homosexuality Law and others also involving serious questions of interpretation regarding the violation of the right to liberty have since been heard and determined, allegedly for reasons best known to the Deputy Chief Justice who is the head of the Constitutional Court.
According to Kalali, he strongly believes that there is an intentional syndicate/deliberate attempt by the head of the Court to frustrate the hearing of his petition in a bid to facilitate further unconstitutional incarceration of citizens who are pressured innocent until proven guilty or plead otherwise.
“That the conduct of the In charge of Administration not to cause list my petition for immediate disposal does not only facilitate congestion in prisons but also infringes on the right to fair hearing for inmates in continued detention as well as violates Rule 10 (1) of the Constitutional petition and Reference Rules 2005”, it adds.
Kalali now is requesting the Chief Inspector of Courts to task or demand an explanation from the Deputy Chief Justice regarding the delayed hearing of his Petition.
He also wants that they should direct the matter to be heard in the next session or immediately without any further delay adding that Justice delayed is justice denied.
He wants the matter to be handled as a matter of urgency.
The records before the Court indicate that on February 15th, 2023, the Court of Appeal Registrar Lillian Bucyana wrote to Kalali’s lawyers of Ochieng Associated Advocates and Consultants indicating that their matter “shall be fixed in consideration of all other urgent matters as soon as possible”.
Records further show that the same lawyers of Kalali have written several letters to the Constitutional Court demanding for hearing but without success hence petitioning the Chief Inspector of Courts.
When contacted, Judiciary Public Relations Officer James Jumire Ereemye Mawanda said he would allow the Chief Inspector of Courts to handle the complaint as addressed.
However, he added that the Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court have a robust case management strategy in place to address case backlogs and prioritize constitutional matters.
“Our case listing criteria are based on carefully selected factors, including ‘first in, first out’, the sensitivity of the case, and public interest, among others. This process is not solely the responsibility of the Deputy Chief Justice, but rather a collaborative effort of the entire Case Management Committee, which works under the guidance of the Courts Registrar”, said Mawanda.
He added that as communicated on February 15, 2023, the matter is currently under consideration and will be attended to in due course.
“I want to emphasize that all matters before the Constitutional Court are of great importance and will be managed in an orderly and systematic manner, as is the standard practice of the Judiciary”, said Mawanda.
English 