DPP rejects Eron Kiiza’s sureties

KAMPALA. The director of public prosecutions (DPP), Jane Frances Abodo, has opposed the bail application of jailed lawyer Eron Kiiza, citing concerns over the nature of the charge against him.

Kiiza was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to nine months in prison by the General Court Martial, chaired by Brigadier Robert Freeman Mugabe, on January 7, 2025.

Following the jail term, Kiiza applied for bail about three weeks ago. Kiiza contends that he has a fixed place of abode at Central Kiwatule Zone, Kiwatule Ward, Nakawa Division, Kampala City, within the jurisdiction of the High court.

He assures the court that he has three sound and substantial sureties ready and willing to stand for him, including his wife Sylvia Tumwebaze, the archives and data manager at Hima Cement, and two lawyers; Dr Busingye Kabumba, a lecturer of Law at Makerere University, and Primah Kwagala, executive director of Women’s Probono Initiative—both of whom are his friends.

Kiiza emphasizes that he is a family man with three young children, aged between 4 and 10 years, who need him to be around as a parent. He argues that keeping him in prison is likely to cause harm to both his parental and professional obligations, as he is the sole partner at his law firm, Kiiza and Mugisha Company Advocates.

Kiiza also requested the court to release him, citing good conduct and his pending appeal, which he believes has a high likelihood of success, among other grounds. In a response filed by the office of the DPP through an affidavit, chief state attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo stated that as an advocate, Kiiza should have known about court decorum and acted in a manner expected of his standing to protect the dignity of the court process.

Kyomuhendo further stated that the conviction reflects the need to protect the court process and underscores the necessity for a restrictive stance on bail in such matters. The DPP’s opposition to Kiiza’s bail application is based on 11 grounds, indicating that Kiiza must provide strict proof of his allegations.

Kyomuhendo also pointed out that the Supreme court’s decree in Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2021, which Kiiza’s legal team relied on, only applies to civilians tried under Section 119 (1)(g), now Section 117 (1)(g) of the UPDF Act, and not advocates found in contempt of court under Sections 169 (1)(g) and 212(9) of the UPDF Act.

According to Kyomuhendo, Kiiza has not shown any exceptional circumstances warranting bail. He also argued that the sureties presented by Kiiza are not substantial, as they live in different locations and have no direct control over him.

“In reply to the applicant’s list of sureties, it is our considered submission that they are not substantial. For instance, on the issue of place of abode, all three sureties presented by the applicant do not adduce evidence to show whether they are tenants or landlords. They further show that they live in different locations and therefore are incapable of compelling the applicant to attend court,” said Kyomuhendo.

The prosecution also argues that the appeal is frivolous and has no possibility of success because the High court has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. They contend that Kiiza’s appeal should be handled by the Court Martial Appeals Court because the High court lacks jurisdiction in such matters.

“That in further reply thereto, the applicant was convicted and sentenced in accordance with the law, and this court has no jurisdiction to hear and grant an application for bail pending appeal before the Court Martial Appeal Court,” says Kyomuhendo.

The DPP also disputed Kiiza’s claim that his appeal will be substantially delayed due to the backlog in the court system, stating that the High court has a good record of disposing of cases.

As such, the DPP urged the court to deny Kiiza’s bail application, citing the need to maintain court decorum and uphold the integrity of the court process. Kyomuhendo prayed that the court considers the totality of the averments contained in the affidavit and finds that the balance of convenience lies squarely with maintaining Kiiza in prison.

Kiiza was convicted on January 7, 2025, when he went to represent Dr Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale. His evidence before the court indicates that as he approached the bar, he was blocked, obstructed, and denied access by armed military personnel dressed in military police attire.

“When I demanded an explanation for my denial of access, none was given. This prompted me to insist on my right of access to the bar as an advocate,” said Kiiza.

Kiiza adds that within minutes, the court clerk violently pushed him away, and the military police orderlies descended on him with blows, kicks, fists, and batons.

“They violently dragged me from the courtroom to the dock while continuing to brutally assault me,” reads Kiiza’s affidavit.

Kiiza further states that after being forcibly removed from the dock and detained in the holding cells, the military police officers continued assaulting him until fellow inmates intervened.

Kiiza was subsequently convicted of contempt of court and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, a sentence for which he has so far served more than two months at Kitalya Min-Max prison.

Last month, High court civil division judge Dr Douglas Singinza dismissed a habeas corpus application filed by Kiiza for lack of jurisdiction, stating that it had been wrongly filed. Kiiza’s bail application will be heard by the criminal division judge, Michael Elubu, on March 25, 2025.