In 2014, Kazinda applied to the Constitutional Court for orders declaring that the act by the DPP to split the cases and initiate charges of offences founded on the same facts for which he was earlier on convicted, contravened the constitution, which was granted.
The Supreme Court has accepted to hear an appeal by
the Directorate of Public Prosecution challenging the constitutional court
judgement, staying the prosecution of Geoffrey Kazinda, the former principal accountant in the Office of the
In August last year, the Constitutional Court
stayed all corruption proceedings against Kazinga, saying his successive prosecution on different cases
based on the same facts amounted to
double jeopardy contrary to Article 28 (9) of the Constitution.
The court also ruled that the numerous trials of Kazinda for offences similar in character also deprived him of his right to a fair hearing. Since
2012, the Directorate of Public Prosecution-DPP has prosecuted Kazinda in separate cases for making fraudulent
payments, embezzlement, forging receipts and invoices, false accounting,
conspiracy to secure money outside authorized disbursement procedures among
In 2014, Kazinda applied to the Constitutional Court for orders declaring that the act by the DPP to split the cases and
initiate charges of offences founded on the same facts for which he was earlier
contravened the constitution, which was granted.
Dissatisfied with the ruling, the Government
filed a notice of appeal on November
20th, 2020. However, this came
after the expiry of the 50
days within, which government
should have filed the appeal. The prosecution led by Counsel Richard Adrori told the supreme court that they learnt on
Oct 31st, 2021
that they had filed their notice of appeal three days late.
He said that the court served the Attorney General with the ruling on Sept 29th, 2020
and that they filed their notice of appeal on November 20th,
2020 making it three days late. The prosecution hence asked the court to allow them to validate their application, arguing that the issues raised in their appeal are substantive.
//Cue in: "That owing to...
Cue out: ...authority number two"//
Kazinda told the seven-member panel
of the supreme court justices that he would suffer double jeopardy if the
application is granted. He insists that all cases are grounded on the same fact based on the fact that
he was a civil servant under the Office of the Prime Minister. He told the court that the actions of the Attorney general were tantamount to disregard of
court orders and that the appeal was an afterthought.
//Cue in: "They just discovered...
Cue out: ...sufficient in law"//
In a brief ruling read by Justice Rubby Opio
Aweri, the seven-member
panel of the Supreme Court justice ruled in favour of the attorney general allowing the application. The other members of the panel are Chief
Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dolo, Justice Stella Arach, Lillian Tibatemwa, Ezekiel
Muhanguzi, Mike Chibita and Percy Tuhaise.
They promised to provide details in their main
//Cue in: “We have carefully…
Cue out: …validated can proceed”//
The prosecution is appealing against the ruling of the
saying that the cases for which Kazinda is being prosecuted are different. Kazinda is being prosecuted under Criminal Case
number 138 of 2012. He was
convicted on several counts of forgery of cash withdraw authorization forms, security papers that are computer generated and making documents without authority.
In Criminal Case number 105 of 2012, he was also
charged with 3 others for fraudulent accounting of fuel invoices contrary to
sections in the Anti-corruption Act. In Criminal case 59 2016, Kazinda was convicted
for possession of illicit wealth while in an ongoing case of Criminal Case 56 of 2018
prosecution, says that
Kazinda presented two instruments to Bank of Uganda to make genuine payments
whose accountability was found to be false.
The prosecution insists these are different cases
based on different facts. The court shall deliver the judgement on notice.