DPP is a high pressure job, says Justice Chibita

New role. Justice Mike Chibita during an interview on January 8. PHOTO BY RACHEL MABALA

What you need to know:

  • Bowing out: The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Justice Mike Chibita, and two others have been posted to the Supreme Court − the highest judicial organ in the country, ending his six-year tenure as a government prosecutor.

Congratulations on your new appointment! How has the journey in the office of the DPP been for the last six years?
The journey of the last six years, like all other journeys had its ups and downs.

How does it feel bouncing back on the bench?
It feels different, as you know judgeship is different. Technically it’s referred to as the bench, and prosecution is part of the bar. So I am now going to move from the bar, back to the bench. I am looking forward to joining my colleagues in Judiciary, there are very many senior people at the Supreme Court and I look forward to learning at their feet.

But also, being able to resolve some issues that from prosecution point of view have remained unresolved. Such as the issue of consistency of sentences. Court sentences, and then Court of Appeal either reduces or increases, but mostly reduces. And there is a school of thought, which believes that the DPP cannot appeal against a lenient sentence.

So that is one of the issues that I would like the Supreme Court to be able to address, because how can you have two parties in the boxing ring, with one having their hands tied, and the second one free? So you cannot allow one party to appeal, and another not to.

Then the second one is about life imprisonment. It has caused some debate, about how long life is. Some people say that under the prisons’ act, life is 20 years, and other people have said that life is life. So I want to be part of the court which will clarify that matter.

How do you compare the two offices, in terms of the challenges, and what do you anticipate in the new one?
Every office has its own unique challenges. The bar, especially prosecution, has its totally unique challenges, and the bench which is the Judiciary, at different levels also has its totally unique challenges. So I definitely assume that the Supreme Court has its own too.

Do you think you have done enough to mitigate crime during your tenure as DPP?
You know mitigating crime is not a one man show. It is the responsibility of all players including the public, the media and Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) institutions. And as the office of the DPP, we believe we have played our part, but there is still a lot to be done.

The DPP under the law, has power to take over and discontinue criminal prosecutions instituted by private individuals and institutions. Under your watch, this has happened. Don’t you think this gives the DPP much power, and make his office prone to abuse, or a subject to injustice?

First of all, powers of the DPP are given to the office by the constitution. The DPP is not the one who made the Constitution. So, that question should be thrown back to the people of Uganda, for having elected their representatives who made the law. But what I can assure you, is that we exercise our discretion very judiciously.

Still in that regard, don’t you think the law should be amended so that before you withdraw a case, you are obliged to explain to the public why you took a particular decision?
Okay let’s put it this way. The government pays the police to investigate cases. If a case happens you report to police, they produce a file, and then you take it to DPP to prosecute. Government pays police, government pays prosecutors, and government pays judges.

Why would an individual bypass police, bypass prosecution, and want to take on a case by themselves? I think that’s the question you should ask yourself. The reason most times is that; the case cannot stand objective scrutiny.

So that is why they want to rush it, and do a private prosecution themselves. No wonder when we take over cases, they are frivolous, and are either withdrawn or dismissed. And in fact, I think that was the wisdom of the makers of the Constitution. Because if you removed that particular power; what would stop somebody from coming and privately prosecuting you, and so on. So it is a good tool of control.

There has been allegations of your office having favouritism. For instance, in a recent case, the former DPC of CPS was accused of murder but he was let off the hook, while Muhammed Ssebuwufu, who was accused of the same crime, was convicted. Why are some individuals prosecuted and others left to walk scot-free?

Every day we prosecute hundreds of cases. And I’ve been in office for six years. If in six years you can only cite one case of favouritism, then I [did] very well.

We have also a big cancer called cadre judges. In the past, you have been appointed and worked in several government positions, including State House. From the High Court and now DPP. This clearly makes you a likely cadre judge, hence the loss of confidence in you. You have now been appointed to the Supreme Court, which presides over election cases. Don’t you think you pass the description of a cadre judge, and you’re there to do bidding for the President?
The answer is no, and secondly that issue of ‘cadre judge’ is a very tired slogan, by people who don’t understand how the Judiciary and the legal system works.

Any appointment to the Judiciary, is made by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) first of all, and then the names are sent to the President who nominates. From there they are then taken to Parliament for vetting.

The Appointments Committee of Parliament is also made up of a cross-section of members of different political parties. Really, with all those checks and balances, which one passes through, how would you say that one is a cadre judge?
And besides, is there a law which states that when you work at State House you cannot become a judge? I worked at State House as a public officer, and State House is full of public officers who are non-partisan. I have been true to my oath.

One could think that the President is now moving you, having worked for his interest as DPP, and is now posting you elsewhere to do more of the same. Would they be right? If not, what are some of the reasons that could have propelled you to make the move?
The appointing authority did not change me. They advertised, and I applied. And in any case, any reasonable human being would want a promotion, and so when I saw an opportunity to be promoted, I applied. I have done six years, and I feel I have made a contribution. I now would want to let somebody else come, and take the role.

But secondly it is a high pressure job too, and very challenging. And I thought that maybe it’s time to do something which has a different kind of stress.

You were recently appointed to the International Association of Prosecutor’s executive committee. How are you going to juggle the two?
So, for that slot, I was representing Africa as a region, and definitely at the next executive meeting, I will have to inform them that I am no longer the DPP. And then, the slot will have to be given to someone else. This is ‘International Association of Prosecutors’, and a judge cannot, therefore, sit on it.

And lastly, where do you think the future of Uganda’s Judiciary lie?
The future of the Ugandan Judiciary is very bright, but again you have to put everything in context.

When you look at where we’ have been and where we are now, you definitely know that we have come from far and we are definitely doing well.