The Supreme Court has ordered a rehearing of former Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), Geoffrey Kazinda’s petition challenging the constitutionality of the criminal proceedings that led to his conviction.
In August 2012, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) initiated criminal proceedings against Kazinda on corruption-related charges. The offences were allegedly committed during his tenure at the OPM.
On June 19, 2013, following trial, Kazinda was convicted of one count of abuse of office, 25 counts of forgery, one count of making a document without authority, and two counts of unlawful possession of government stores. He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms ranging from two to five years.
On October 3, 2014, Kazinda petitioned the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of the criminal proceedings against him. He argued that subsequent criminal cases were based on the same facts as those for which he had already been convicted, thereby violating the constitutional protection against double jeopardy.
He also raised concerns about the conduct of police investigations prior to the institution of the charges and faulted the High Court’s handling of parts of the proceedings, claiming violations of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The Constitutional Court agreed with Kazinda and declared that the additional criminal proceedings violated the rule against double jeopardy, as they were founded on the same facts for which he had already been convicted. The court permanently stayed the two criminal cases and directed the Anti-Corruption Court to discharge him. It further prohibited the institution of any future criminal proceedings based on similar facts arising from his former employment at the OPM.
Dissatisfied with that decision, the appellant challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court in August 2020, filing several applications questioning the competence of the appeal.
Kazinda argued that a decision endorsed by the majority of judges on the Constitutional Court panel could not be invalidated merely because one judge did not sign or deliver an opinion. He maintained that the validity of the court’s decision depended on the majority’s authoritative voice rather than the arithmetic completeness of all individual opinions.
A panel of Supreme Court justices led by former Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, alongside Justices Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Elizabeth Musoke, Christopher Madrama Izama, Monica Mugenyi, and Catherine Bamugemereire, ruled that the Constitutional Court’s decision was invalid and set it aside.
“We find that the judgment of the Constitutional Court in the 2024 Constitutional Petition by Kazinda is invalid,” the justices ruled.
The Supreme Court ordered that the file be remitted to the Constitutional Court for rehearing as a matter of utmost urgency.
