Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the High Court Criminal Division has cleared the National Unity Platform (NUP) Principal Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu (Bobi Wine) on allegation of fraudulently being admitted on mature entry in Makerere University.
Lawyer Male Mabirizi petitioned the High Court challenging the decision of Law Development Centre (LDC) magistrate allowing the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to take over his private prosecution case against Bobi Wine.
Upon taking over the file, the DPP dropped the charges without Mabirizi’s consent which angered him.
In his application, Mabirizi accused Bobi Wine of fraudulently securing a government scholarship to study a diploma in dance and drama at Makerere university illegally.
He explained that Bobi Wine sat his Uganda Advanced Certificate of Education (UACE) in 1999 and in 2000, he then applied for a slot at Makerere university but was not admitted because he did not have money to facilitate his studies.
He further claimed that through his relative working at Makerere university, Bobi Wine was admitted on mature scheme entry when he was just 20 years even though the requirement for a person to be admitted on mature entry was 25 years and above.
He further claimed that for any person to be allowed to enter on mature entry, they had to first have completed their lower education five years and above, a requirement which Bobi Wine violated since he was admitted in 2000 yet he sat his UACE in 1999
However, the DPP through Timothy Amerit the head of Private Prosecutions Liaison and Coordination Unit protested the application insisting that Court has no powers to determine on how the DPP proceeds with criminal cases noting that any decision taken in favour of Mabirizi will be an interference with the powers of the DPP.
He explained that after investigations were made by Wandegeya police station which included recording witness statements, including one from from Mabirizi himself, Makerere university staff, the DPP established that there is no evidence that places Bobi Wine in the dock that is why they withdrew the charges.
The prosecutor told the Court that the laws do not mandate DPP to consult Mabirizi or any other private prosecutor when discontinuing the matter once the private prosecutor surrenders the matter.
In his ruling, the judge agreed with the DPP.
He explained that the supervisory powers of the High Court provided for under section l7( I ) of the Judicature Act do not stretch to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and doing so would amount to interfering with the constitutional mandate of the DPP.
“Private prosecution is subordinate to public prosecution and once the DPP takes over, the matter falls squarely within the DPPs constitutional mandate. This includes not only the power to direct and manage the course of proceedings but also the authority to discontinue them entirely under article I 20 (3) (d) of the constitution,” the judge stated.
He further noted that his Court cannot interfere with the discretionary powers of the ODPP and order for reinstatement of the case which has been already withdrawn.
He thus dismissed the application without any order for costs.
