Members of Parliament (MPs) on the Legal Committee have rebuked the Judiciary for the reckless handling of bail applications, with some lawmakers wondering whether some judicial officers even have common sense or deserving of titles like Worships, Lordship, or Justices, yet all their actions are characterised by injustices like adjourning for two weeks just to decide on a bail application.
The attacks were led by Abdu Katuntu, the MP for Bugweri County, and Medard Ssegoona, the MP for Busiro East, during a meeting held with officials from the judiciary who had come to present their 2025/26 ministerial policy statement.
“There is this simple thing called bail. And somebody adjourns a case for two weeks to grant bail. This is madness. This is purely madness. It is not professional. It’s not legal. It’s not common sense. Take a decision whether you grant it or not. Simple. But you adjourn for two weeks to consider bail or even more; what are we doing, gentlemen? And some of you, we call you lordships. We call you worships. Why are you Justices when you cannot dispense justice?” argued Katuntu.
“You adjourn a bail application. What is so novel in a bail ruling? Someone tells you, I’m going to hear your case, but I’ll hear your bail application two weeks, three weeks away from today. You are defeating the Constitution. Because in the Constitution, everybody is entitled to be free, except where their accuser places on your table justification for restriction. Isn’t that the position of the law? Every innocent person is entitled to freedom. Now, you’re aiding the State to incarcerate somebody who is innocent until two weeks when that person will come to justify his freedom. I think it’s unfair,” remarked Ssegoona.
Exorbitant bail fees
The Judiciary was also castigated for the exorbitant bail fees imposed on suspects, with Katuntu accusing judicial officers of vulgarising and monetarising bail applications, wondering if there aren’t other mechanisms that can be used to enforce the appearance of suspects in courts.
“Why has money been the factor of the bail? Money. Why don’t we think about other things, such as the attendance, other than it being economics? Because bail is about for you to secure his attendance. And we have vulgarised it; it is about money. It’s just vulgar, actually. Money, money, money. So me, who doesn’t have money, I have no opportunity because the biggest factor is money,” Katuntu said.
“Why do you charge a lot of money? Somebody has been arrested. Actually, somebody is a victim. The police arrest people and beat them up; we witnessed it in Kawempe recently. Someone has been boxed by the DPC; he comes to you with a swollen face; you remand him, and then when you choose to hear, you ask for a lot of money. These ordinary people, they pick on the streets, trying to survive. Why do you make bail so prohibitive?” Ssegoona asked.
New law on bail proposed
Ssegoona also wondered if the Judiciary has a system that periodically reviews the decisions of these judicial officers and offered to be among those to review these decisions, to which Katuntu proposed the enactment of an independent law on bail applications.
“We should start thinking about going away from the guidelines and make substantive legislation which sort of ties your hands. It’s very unfortunate because you want a judicial officer to have discretion, to exercise it judiciously. But if we are faced with a fatal problem, cured by the law, then we go to that level because somehow you are not exercising that discretion properly,” remarked Katuntu.
Judiciary apologises
Pius Bigirimana, Secretary to the Judiciary, apologised on behalf of the Judiciary, stating, “I want to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of the judiciary for some of the shortcomings that have been experienced. And some of them are systemic; others are for individuals in the judiciary. We do apologise. But we are not just seated; we are looking at all those areas that have got weaknesses and seeing how to fix them, both in the human resources and in the systems.”
Bigirimana, however, defended the monetisation of bail, saying it is currently the only available means, saying, “For the time being, that’s what we have. But we shall benefit from members’ ideas. If you can come up with, for example, a proposal, you will have helped us. But for the time being, it is that.”
We will burn you
Ssegoona warned the judiciary that Ugandans might be prompted to emulate their Kenyan counterparts, who set Kenya’s Parliament on fire and also set court buildings ablaze, due to the declining public trust in the judicial system.
“You get somebody who is battered, who is bleeding, and you remand that person. You do not even instruct prisons; go and keep this person in hospital. Instead, you say, I am remanding somebody to Luzira. You know, just next door in Kenya, Kenyans went and burnt their parliament. We do not want to see Ugandans burning our courts. Why? Because once the dignity of the court is questioned and shaken, we are in trouble because somebody who would have taken me to court will use a panga and will resort to mob justice,” warned Ssegoona.
Number of prisoners on remand without unknown
The MPs were also shocked to learn that the Judiciary had written to the Commissioner of Prisons, Johnson Byabashaija, demanding a list of all the inmates on remand without trial, prompting Ssegoona to question if the same Judiciary that committed these suspects had forgotten about the dates they were supposed to return to court for trial.
His remarks followed a revelation by Pamela Lamunu, Acting Chief Registrar, who informed the MPs that the Judiciary had written to Uganda Prisons Services requesting the list of all people on remand without trial.
Ssegoona noted, “Before you receive information from the Commissioner General, you are the one who remanded these people. You definitely know who you remanded; you know when you required them to come back. How can somebody be in prison for a year without your remand warrant? When people are being committed to the high court for trial, you also have that record because the magistrate who is committing notes on the file.”
