Court sets bail ruling for jailed lawyer Eron Kiiza
Lawyer Eron Kiiza in the dock at the High Court in Kampala during the hearing of his bail application. Photo/Juliet Kigongo.
High Court judge Michael Elubu has set April 4 when he will decide on the bail application filed by jailed advocate, Eron Kizza.
The judge's decision was prompted by the state’s response to Mr Kiiza's bail application which was filed through his lawyers before the High Court.
"The parties have filed all the necessary documents in court. I will render this court's ruling on April 4," Justice Elubu said on Tuesday, March 25, 2025.
While appearing in the dock on Tuesday, Mr Kiiza who is serving a nine-month sentence for contempt of the General Court Martial told the judge that it is now 76 days since he was illegally convicted and sentenced thus seeking his release.
His lawyer, Mr Nicholas Opio also presented three substantial sureties, including his wife Syliva Tumwebaze, his cousin Prof Busingye Kabumba and friend Primah Kwagla.
In his application, Mr Kiiza noted that he petitioned the Court of Appeal challenging his conviction and sentence by the military court, has a fixed place of abode, the offence he was convicted of did not involve personal violence, the appeal is not frivolous as it has a high chance of success and has substantial sureties.
He argued that the nine-month sentence imposed on him by the defunct General Court Martial sitting in Makindye was illegal and unconstitutional and that it would be unjust for him to continue serving the same.
“It is unjust, inequitable, and against the tenets of constitutionalism, rule of law and good governance for the applicant (Kiiza) to continue in detention as a result of an illegal, unconstitutional conviction and sentence," reads in part the court documents.
On January 7, 205, Mr Kiiza appeared before the General Court Martial as one of the lawyers for veteran opposition politician, Dr Kizza Besigye.
He was subdued by soldiers on accusations of exhibiting professional misconduct when he allegedly confronted a court orderly while he guided him on where to sit in the courtroom.
Then presiding court chairman, Brig Gen Robert Freeman Mugabe without giving him a hearing, summarily convicted and sentenced him to nine months in prison at Kitalya where he has been since then.
But Kiiza contends that he is a beneficiary of the Supreme Court landmark ruling that clipped the powers of the General Courts-Martial from trying civilians.
However, the Director of Public Prosecutions has since objected to the bail application thus raising nine grounds, among which, she argues that Mr Kiiza has not disclosed any exceptional circumstance to warrant his release, his sureties are not substantial because they have no control over him, there will be no delay in disposing off his application.
The state further argued that Mr Kiiza was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in accordance with Sections 169 (1)(g) and 211(9) of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Act, Cap 330.
“That the applicant being an advocate of the courts of law ought to have known about court decorum and acted in the manner expected of his standing in order to protect the dignity of the court process and his conviction reflects the need to protect the court process and underscores the necessity for a restrictive stance on bail in such matters to protect the integrity and decorum of court processes,” the DPP contends.
In his affidavit opposing the bail application, Mr Joseph Kyomuhendo, the chief state attorney argued that Mr Kiiza has no right of appeal before the Court of Appeal which has no jurisdiction to entertain his application.
“That in reply to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the affidavit in support, the applicant’s right of appeal is prescribed by statute and it lies before the Court Martial Appeals Court and not before the High Court,” reads in part the court document.
Mr Kyomuhendo further noted that the Supreme Court’s decree in Constitutional Appeal No.02 of 2021 Attorney General Vs Hon Micheal A Kabazigurua was only in respect of civilians tried under section 119 (1) (g) now S. 117 (1) (g) of the UPDF Act and not advocates found in contempt of court under sections 169(1)(g) and 212(9) of the UPDF Act.
