‘U HAVE NO MANDATE’: LAWYERS KABUUSU & MABIRIZI CHALLENGE PRESIDENT M7 ON CHARGING POLITICIANS GIVING OUT FOOD WITH MURDER

0
506

NEWS EDITOR

LEARNED counsels Moses Kabuusu and Hassan Male K. Mabirizi Kiwanuka have openly challenged president Museveni’s order he gave Uganda Police Force yesterday, to arrest and charge with attempted murder all politicians distributing  foodstuffs to people these days. 

In his address, Museveni said, “In the meantime, arrest the opportunistic and irresponsible politicians who try to distribute food for cheap popularity. Those are very dangerous to the health of the people.”

“When you try to distribute food or money in such a situation, people gather around you. Many people can be infected in that process. You will, therefore, have caused the sickness or death of those people. Anybody involved in that effort will be arrested and charged with attempted murder.” So ordered the President.

However Lawyers are saying, the President has no mandate to ammend the laws.

“Ammendment of statutes is a preserve of the legislature. He is not a member of the National assembly therefore, he has no mandate to amend the laws.” Said counsel Moses Kabuusu, former Kyamuswa member of Parliament.

City lawyer Male Mabirizi when approached to interprete the law had this to say: “It is President Museveni’s illegal speech orders which amount to attempted murder.”

Here is how each of the two lawyers detailed his interpretation of the law:

COUNSEL MABIRIZI INTERPRETATION: 

Fellow Ugandans and Comrades in the struggle for Rule of Law, I have since 18th March 2020 maintained that President Museveni’s speech orders are illegal to which I even filed High Court Misc. Cause No. 70 of 2020 which Chief Justice Bart Katureebe has ensured that is not heard. 

Counsel Mabirizi being prepared for a court battle

I, with other willing comrades are looking forward to other forms of legal remedies against the pouring illegal orders from the elderly ruler of this Pearl of mankind.

Yesterday, Museveni made several pronouncements among which he claimed that he was directing Uganda Police to arrest all politicians distributing food or driving people to hospitals and charge them with attempted Murder. 

That was ‘arbitrary governance,…by a totalitarian leader…(and somehow) mob rule.’ 

 These pronouncements are against the rule of law which is in turn hostile to both dictatorship and anarchy.’

Article 213(3) of our Constitution provides that “The Uganda Police Force shall be under the command of the Inspector General of Police who shall be assisted by the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the performance of his or her functions.” Therefore, President has no powers to direct police on what to do in their day to day activities and the framers of this provision indeed wanted to avoid an instance like this where a politician in power uses the police to muzzle his/her opponents. 

Article 120(3) states that “The functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions are the following— to direct the police to investigate any information of criminal nature and to report to him or her expeditiously; to institute criminal proceedings against any person or authority in any court with competent jurisdiction other than a court martial;..” 

Hence Museveni turned himself into DPP whom he has refused to appoint ever since Mike Chibita became a Justice of Supreme Court. I think his fear to appoint a Director for Public Prosecutions is the independence given to him by article 120(6) that “In the exercise of the functions conferred on him or her by this article, the Director of Public Prosecutions shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.” 

In times like this where Museveni is aware that except those eating from his regime, his support amongst Ugandans is dismal, he hates officers with such powers to be substantive but prefers to have make-shift officers who can be manipulated on the thinking that doing what M7 wants may earn them the position of DPP.

Further, in my opinion, any prosecution in absence of a DPP stands null and void because he is the only one empowered under the Constitution to initiate prosecution.

President Museveni did not cite any law under which the politicians would be charged with attempted murder yet he was addressing the Nation and illegally directing the Police Force which both the Constitutional and Supreme Courts have found to be incompetent and partisan going by the way they harassed Ugandans in 2017 over the age limit removal

Section 188 of The Penal Code Act, Chapter 120 which provides that “Any person who with malice aforethought causes the death of another person by an unlawful act or omission commits murder.” 204 provides “Any person who— (a) attempts unlawfully to cause the death of another; or (b) with intent unlawfully to cause the death of another, does any act or omits to do any act, which is his or her duty to do, such act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life, commits a felony and is liable to imprisonment for life.” 

And 386(1) states that “When a person, intending to commit an offence, begins to put his or her intention into execution by means adapted to its fulfillment, and manifests his or her intention by some overt act, but does not fulfill his or her intention to such an extent as to commit the offence, he or she is deemed to attempt to commit the offence.”

So, from the above legal provisions, who is ‘doing any act or has omitted to do any act, which it is his or her duty to do, such act or omission being of such a nature as to be likely to endanger human life’? 

Is it Museveni or the opposition leaders giving out food, relief items and rushing Ugandans to hospitals? Who is endangering the lives of Ugandans? Comrades, it is Museveni who is doing so. 

First, politicians have no duty to protect lives and improve welfare of Ugandans but the Presidential Oath in the 4th Schedule to our Constitution provides that “I,…swear in the name of the Almighty God….. that I shall promote the welfare of the people of Uganda. [So help me God.]” 

After which Article 99(3) states that “It shall be the duty of the President to abide by, uphold and safeguard this Constitution and the laws of Uganda and to promote the welfare of the citizens…” 

On the other hand, Article 17(1)(c) provides that “It is the duty of every citizen of Uganda— to protect children and vulnerable persons against any form of abuse, harassment or ill-treatment;” 

It is the exercise of this duty for which President Museveni wants people to be charged with attempted murder. 

So, is it God helping this former guerilla to make orders which will cause death of Ugandans due to failure to access food and medical attention or some evil spirits? 

Take an example of my burial village of Kasana in Mukono district. To reach Kasan one branches off atNdese-kayunga Road and drives for several kilometres. 

Does Museveni expect my aunt who is due to first go to Mukono where his RDC sits, get permission and then go back and get a bodaboda to take her to Nakifuma Health Centre to deliver?

So, if this aunt of mine dies, who should be charged for attempted murder? When a man dies because of a snake bite which cannot be cured because of lack of means of transport to the nearby Health Centre, who will be responsible for the death? 

When my diabetic father Bazinduse Lulibedda Mutumba Ganaafa who also suffers from high blood pressure dies because of lack of transport to Mengo Hospital, who will be responsible? 

I think it is Museveni going by his oath of office and who abused his office in making such illegal orders. 

I know we cannot charge him while in office but he is aware that as soon as he ceases to hold that office, we can charge him.

That is why he fought tooth and nail to amend our Constitution by force to try and rule for life.

But I am optimistic that the East African Court of Justice will sort this forceful Constitutional ‘Aggravated Robbery’ ‘sanitized and masked by Judicial Fraud’ presided over by his old friend Bart Katureebe.

Under article 1 of our Constitution, “All power belongs to the people who shall exercise their sovereignty in accordance with this Constitution”.

Which Constitution tells you under article 3(5) that “Any person or group of persons who, as required by clause (4) of this article, resists the suspension, overthrow, abrogation or amendment of this Constitution commits no offence.” 

I know there is much fear that giving your friend food, transporting a dying mother or an elderly to the hospital may lead to your arrest but my position is that as we take precautionary measures of not being illegally arrested by the junta forces, we must always remember the provisions of article 3(6) of our Constitution which provides that “Where a person referred to in clause (5) of this article is punished for any act done under that clause, the punishment shall, on the restoration of this Constitution, be considered void from the time it was imposed, and that person shall be taken to be absolved from all liabilities arising out of the punishment.” 

Meaning that the punishments will be void as soon as we recover from this draconian situation.

COUNSEL KABUUSU ON PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY 

The principle of legality as enshrined in Article 28(7) presupposes no person shall be charged and or convicted of an offence not prescribed by any law with its penalty prescribed there of.

Counsel Hon. Moses Kabuusu

For the offence of attempted murder to stand it has ingredients that must be fulfilled

  1. Attempt to (murder)

And for murder there are ingredients to be fulfilled thus;

  1. Death or a dead body/corpse
  2. Unlawfully executed
  3. With Malice aforethought
  4. Liability of the accused.

Those ingredients are not very easy to prove against a politician giving out food to hungry and angry people

Be aware of this though!

State never prosecutes people to prove guilt but on most cases; premeditated guilt or vendetta, persecution of suspects whom state wishes to taste the wrath of their domination, keeping jobs for both state attorneys and magistrates to report to office on daily basis and employment for clerks and registry staff.

When I understood that, I ceased challenging defective charge sheets, malicious prosecution, and I never object to adjournments on account of investigations being incomplete.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here