Principle

Bail pending trial– presumption of innocence – seriousness of the offense must be balanced against the presumption of innocence.

Bail pending trial—Personal liberty—Liberty not to be deprived unreasonably—Bail should not be denied as a punishment.

Case Summary and Outcome

The Applicant applied for bail pending trial, having been charged with the offence of money laundering contrary to Sections 3(c), 116 and 136 (1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2013, as amended. The Court held that the Constitution of Uganda guarantees the right to apply for bail in Article 23(6)(a), which stems from the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution, and that the seriousness of the offence must therefore be balanced against the application of that presumption. The Court allowed the application and released the Applicant on bail.

Facts

Opiyo Nicholas, an advocate and Founding Executive Director of Chapter Four Uganda, was charged with the offence of money laundering contrary to Sections 3(c), 116 and 136 (1)(a) of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2013, as amended, and remanded.

It was alleged by the prosecution that the Applicant had, on October 5, 2020, received USD 340,000 through a bank account at ABSA Bank in Kampala in the name of Chapter Four Uganda, with knowledge that the funds were proceeds of crime.

Holding

The Court granted bail to the Applicant with the following conditions:

• That the Applicant executes a cash bond of UGX 15 million.
• The Applicant deposits his passport with the Registrar of the Court until disposal of the case or otherwise determined by the Court.
• The Applicant reports to the Registrar of the Court every two weeks with effect from the date of his release.
• Each surety to execute a bond of UGX 100 million (non-cash).

Reasoning of Court

The purpose of bail is not to free an accused person from any charges that he may be facing, but rather to allow the person to stand trial without being necessarily detained in custody during that time.

The essence and true meaning of the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution, as regards bail, is that an accused person need not suffer incarceration unreasonably, as he or she is not yet a convict.

However serious the nature of the charge against an accused person, it remains an allegation until proven. The seriousness of the offence must therefore be balanced against the application of this presumption and other relevant factors when considering whether to grant bail or not.

It is the law that discretion on whether to grant bail or not remains with the court, but it is also to be exercised judiciously. Courts are not to deprive a person of liberty unreasonably. They are also expected not to deny bail merely as a punishment, as this would conflict with the presumption of innocence.

Significance of the Case

This case highlights the importance of bail in the criminal justice system and stresses the importance of the presumption of innocence and the need for the court to balance the seriousness of the offence against that presumption.