Lawyers Lock Horns on Kabamba Attack Suspects Bail Application

Hearing of the bail application for the three people accused alongside eleven others for engaging in a plan to attack Kabamba barracks has flopped after the defense counsel Fredrick Ssemwanga failed to agree with court on the right procedure that must be followed when applying for bail.

These and others are said to have convened meetings and recruited people in Rebel activities against the state and surveyed armored war fare barracks in Mubende District  and Karama Barracks to prejudice security.

The three persons whom Ssemwanga had set to apply bail for are Muyimbwa Herbert, viagra Mukiibi Ali and Nassim Namuzimule.

Counsel Ssemwanga informed court that this bail application is unopposed by the state prosecution because he served the state with the application in time but up to date they had never filed in their reply. For this he says, order the application must be heard unopposed.

“Basing on Article 23 of the constitution section 14.1 and section 15 of TIA Cap 23 rule 2 of the Judicature Criminal Procedure, case the three applicants stand unopposed because the prosecution has no locus to address court after failing to file in court their reply in time”

However this was opposed by the Judge Advocate Lt Col Gideon Katinda who is the legal advisor of the court saying that the prosecution was not time barred as defense counsel alleged.

A misunderstanding between the parties that followed prompted the Gen court martial chairman Lt Gen Andrew Gutti to adjourn the hearing of the bail application to 29th August 2016.

At the same time the hearing of the main case which was for further hearing also flopped after the failure of the first prosecution witness Lance Corporal Norman Sembatya to turn up in court for cross examination as expected


The lead state prosecutor Major Raphael Mugisha revealed that the witness was feeling unwell and asked for a short adjournment

This angered the defense counsel Fredrick Ssemwanga; “The game starts again, state has not produced any witness, the counsel is just assuming because he has no evidence. Court should be mindful of the time the accused persons have spent on remand where they have never missed court”

Ssemwanga asked to task the state to confirm to court that their witness will be available in court in the next sitting for cross examination

Defense counsel has asked court to allow them bring a projector and a laptop to be able to cross examine the witness which court granted.

Back to top button
Translate »

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker