Views: 10
On 28 October 2020, Uganda registered a landmark judgment in the case of Uganda v Geoffrey Kazinda. Although there have been a couple of other previously prosecuted illicit enrichment cases, the Kazinda case is the most significant because of the vast sum of money involved: a total of UGX 4,630,195,258 (over USD 1,252,600).
Kazinda, a former Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, was convicted on three counts of illicit enrichment contrary to section 31 of the Anti-Corruption Act, 2009. He has previously been prosecuted for other corruption-related offences. The case, which was investigated and prosecuted by the Inspectorate of Government, paves the way for development of the offence of illicit enrichment in Uganda.
Jailed former principal accountant in the office of Prime Minister Geoffrey Kazinda has again sued the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Attorney General, and the Inspector General of Government (IGG) for refusing to acquit him of the charges despite an order by the Constitutional Court.
Incompatible standard of living
In the first count, the court found that between 2009 and 2012, the accused maintained a standard of living that was not commensurate with his known sources of income. The evidence showed that between 2010 and 2012, the accused had rented a suite at Sheraton Hotel, Kampala for over six months. The accused spent UGX 210,364,011 (USD 56,910) on this expense. The accused had stated in his Asset Declaration Forms that, for the period in issue, he had no other sources of income other than his salary and allowances, which totalled UGX 83,754,655 (USD 22,658).
To disassociate this expense from himself, the accused obtained a credit facility at the hotel in the name of an accomplice. The accomplice denied having occupied the suite in his evidence. Also, expert evidence on handwriting showed that the accused had signed the invoices of the bills incurred. He also made part payments in cheques in his own name. Oral evidence from hotel staff also proved that it was the accused who occupied the suite at the time.
A mansion and plots of land in Kampala
In the second count, the court found that between 2010 and 2012, the accused was in control and possession of three plots of land in Bukoto, Kampala worth a total value of UGX 3,657,747,500 (USD 989,540), which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. On a part of this land sat the accused’s spectacular mansion.
Interestingly, the accused had tried to disassociate himself from these properties by transferring them as a gift to the registered trustees of a local Christian monks’ group. Three witnesses from the monks’ group testified that their society did not, in fact, own these properties. Their acquisition was not reflected in their Annual General Meeting reports of the years in question. Neither were they reflected in their inventory of properties.
So, though the accused had purported to have transferred these properties by way of a gift to the monks, evidence showed that he remained in possession and control of these properties. He also retained the land titles. The fact that the accused did not declare these properties in his Asset Declarations led to an inference that he had obtained them illicitly.
Luxury cars
In the third count, the court found that between 2010 and 2012, the accused was in control and possession of four motor vehicles worth a total value of UGX 769,473,835 (208,145 USD), which was disproportionate to his known sources of income. One of these vehicles was a Mercedes Benz worth a whopping UGX 544,594,287 (USD 147,315).
Strangely, the accused registered this luxurious vehicle in the name of a Christian monk who was his family friend. The other three vehicles were also registered in the names of accomplices. However, the court established that the accused owned and was in control of the said vehicles.
The Supreme Court has said it will ,at a future date, pronounce itself on the appeal filed by the Attorney challenging the Constitutional Court’s ruling that ordered the immediate release of former principal accountant in the Office of Prime Minister Geoffrey Kazinda.
Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, who headed a panel of seven justices, decided to put the Kazinda ruling on notice after the parties met last Friday, where they gave final directives on how the appeal should be concluded.
“That (written submissions of the case) should be on record by Friday, July 19, and then served to the Attorney General not later than Friday, July 26. The Attorney General to file any rejoinder if they find it necessary and the court will deliver its decision on notice,” Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo said.
In August 2020, a majority judgment of the Constitutional Court held that the continuous prosecution of Kazinda amounted to double jeopardy within the meaning of Article 28(9) of the Constitution, before ordering his release from Luzira prison where he had been incarcerated for close to eight years.
The justices added: “The numerous trials for offences similar in character amounts to a deprivation of the right to a fair hearing and contravenes Articles 28(1) and (9) of the Constitution.”
But being dissatisfied with the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Attorney General appealed before the final court in the land, the Supreme Court, to overturn the same.
The Attorney General, in his grounds of appeal, said the majority justices of the Constitutional Court erred in law and fact when they found that the continuous prosecution of Kazinda amounted to double jeopardy.
Kazinda has been in prison since 2012, serving jail sentences ranging from five to 40 years on various corruption-related charges.
While representing himself, Kazinda in 2014, petitioned the Constitutional Court, arguing that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) split his corruption cases emanating from similar facts, on which he had already been convicted on some, amounted to double jeopardy contrary to the demands of the Constitution.
He further argued that the DPP should have had all the cases in one trial if he was to have a fair trial and not a piecemeal arrangement.
Article 28(1) of the Constitution provides for a right to a fair hearing while Section 23(1) of the Trial Indictment Act and Section 86(1) of the Magistrate’s Court Act provide that any offences may be charged together in the same charge if the offences are founded on the same facts.
Kazinda was convicted of a series of offenses including abuse of office, forgery, embezzlement, illicit-enrichment, and causing financial loss. He is serving various sentences handed down by the Anti-Corruption Court. Kazinda is now being represented by lawyer George Musisi.
Source; Brussels news