Lawyer Mabirizi bid to challenge trial dismissed
The Constitutional Court has dismissed with costs a petition in which lawyer, Hassan Male Mabirizi, was challenging the legality of his trial pending a decision of the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to discontinue criminal proceedings against him.
In 2014, Mr Mabirizi petitioned the Court to challenge the decisions of the Resident State Attorney and the Grade One Magistrate, to try him while waiting for the decision of the DPP whether to discontinue the said proceedings.
In 2013, Mr Mabirizi was arraigned and charged over alleged theft of a land title before the Magistrate’s Court at Buganda Road Court when he petitioned the DPP arguing that the criminal proceedings were wrongly sanctioned yet the matter is civil in nature.
In a unanimous judgment, five judges held that they could not agree with Mr Mabirizi that the continuance of his trial while awaiting a response from the DPP on a request to discontinue proceedings was an infringement of his rights.
The court reasoned that it cannot be a correct proposition of the law that where a civil suit is pending between two parties, no criminal proceedings may be instituted against one of the parties arising from same facts.
“We have found no breach of any constitutional provision or any question for constitutional interpretation, it goes without saying that we find no merit in the petitioners’ allegation that his rights were derogated by the actions of the Resident State Attorney and the trial magistrate,” the judges ruled.
The judges are Kenneth Kakuru, Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Barishaki Cheborion, Ezekiel Muhanguzi, and Stephen Musota.
“The petitioner did not face any kind of discrimination at the magistrates’ court and as such none of his rights under the Constitution were infringed,” the judges held.
On Mr Mabirizi’s complaint accusing the State Attorney of failing to disclose to him the evidences they intended to rely on during trial, the judges reasoned that the record did not show whether the trial magistrate adjudicated on the matter or not.
“It is our considered view that this matter does not raise any questions for constitutional interpretation,” the court ruled.
Court records indicate that Mr Mabirizi, the managing director of MK Financiers, had asked the Constitutional Court to determine the effect of an application for discontinuance of criminal proceedings to the DPP pursuant to Article 120 of the Constitution.
He had argued that he was not at the magistrate’s mercy to enjoy the rights he complains to have been infringed because they are inherent rights under the Constitution.
