Deputy DPP

In an in-depth interview with the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions in charge of prosecutions, Mr. Byabakama, the later sheds some light about the prosecution service in the country. He talked to our staff writer (John Kabagambe) and below are the excerpts.

(Q) As the Dy/DPP in charge of prosecutions what would you comment about the prosecution service in Uganda?
(A)The prosecution service has in general improved tremendously. First of all, we have more lawyers than we used to have say 10 years ago, thus unlike 10 years ago when most of our prosecution was in the high court due to a limited number of staff, we have now extended our control to magistrate courts, though not entirely but at least to a large extent. Secondly, our improvement is reflected in the number of backlog cases pending trial at the various high courts. In most stations with resident judges or magistrates. There is an overwhelming number of backlog cases. This is indicative of the fact that our officers peruse files on time and commit the accused persons for trial on time. So, the fact that backlog per station is going up is a clear improvement because in the past we used to have a backlog of uncommitted files.

(Q)What are the challenges (if any) that need to be addressed so as to improve the prosecution service in the country?
(A)The rate of disposal of cases in magistrate court is still undesirable because of the endemic problem of not having enough magistrates. For example there are situations where several stations are handled by a single magistrate. This therefore contributes a lot to the poor disposal of cases. Secondly, there is a need for police to further improve in its handling of investigations. I am however confident that this is being addressed since over the past few years, we have coordinated our operations with police, we hold regular joint meetings to review this and other issues pertaining to our work, in an effort to finding ways and solutions within our reach to all problem areas in general.

(Q)How about on the side of DPP, what needs to be done to further improve the prosecution service?
(A)On our part, we need to effectively and wholly take over prosecution in those courts where we have not yet deployed, we need to open-up more offices, we need to further increase on the professional personnel in areas we have not yet reached, and also have constant training on job for officers.

(Q)There has been talk of specialized units of prosecution, are they operational yet?
(A)Yes they are for example the Fraud unit, which is headed by Mr. Vincent Wagona Ag. SPSA is operational. We started off by attaching members of this unit to Scorpion of South Africa. This unit handles economic crime, and it is already coordinating with CID particularly in Kampala in guiding investigations of fraud cases and taking over such cases in upcountry stations. We have set up other specialized units in charge of miscellaneous applications, High Court sessions, appeal sessions and juvenile justice.

(Q)What is the rationale behind establishing the above units?
(A)The creation of those units is a further demonstration of the improved work method of the directorate. The purpose is to ensure efficiency, to make sure our staff attains specialized experience and so far this is working well.

(Q)You are reputed to have handled the bulk of landmark cases in the directorate. What impact has successful prosecution of these cases had?
(A)The directorate overall has made an impact given the number of high profile cases and and handled them well. In fact some of the cases have led to the restatements of the set the law in that they have cleared some grey areas or uncertainties in our law. For example the case of Arvind Patel compelled the Supreme Court to clear the uncertainty that surrounded the former S.I 42 of the magistrates courts Act. There had been uncertainty in the sense that some people construed the above section to imply that a case may not be heard by more than two magistrates. However, owing to the Supreme Court Criminal Arvind Patel V Uganda case No. 36/2002, the justices ruled that S.I 42 does not restrict or bar cases from being heard by more than two magistrates. This helped to unblock the system since some of the accused persons were exploiting that section to delay trials if they know the case against them was so bad. Yet a situation where more than two magistrates get to hear a case could not be avoided owing to the transfer of magistrates. The other landmark case was Supreme Court Criminal case Katuramu J S. Verses Uganda No. 35/2000 (the former prime minister of the Tooro Kingdom) this case demonstrated the fact that no one is above the law. The law is not discriminatory. However high or low one is, it applies to all uniformly. And then we had Supreme Court of Uganda Criminal Appeal No. 44 of 2000 Sharma Kooky and Palinder Kumar's Verses Uganda case. This was a landmark case in the sense that, it sounded a very loud warning against domestic violence. The message was given to the effect that domestic violence cannot be tolerated in Uganda no matter what the culture and background of the parties involved may be. It is the first widely followed case regarding the evil of domestic violence resulting in death. The other landmark case Asenue Androa and Kakooza Joseph Denis V Uganda was that of Prof. Mudoola and Dr. Kidubuka. Prof. Mudoola died in bizarre circumstances and there was a great feeling that justice be seen done once the perpetrators had been apprehended. We thank God we found sufficient evidence to convince the judges to convict. Lastly, we had the case of Supreme Court of Uganda Criminal Appeal- Kassim Mpanga V Uganda No. 23/1994 this was a case of the top executive in the banking industry who was a manager in Masaka with the then Libyan Arab Bank renamed Tropical Bank. This case highlighted fragrant abuse of office and causing financial loss. It is a landmark case because it was the first time for courts to look at the offence of causing financial loss and since then, the decision, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, became law.

(Q)Are you satisfied with the law as it stands in the statute books?
(A)Not really. Our penal code is inadequate in many respects. It needs to be amended to conform to new trends of sophisticated crimes. For example computer related offences are not covered in the penal code. Many of these economic or financial related crimes are not adequately covered. This needs to be addressed.

(Q)How do you respond to concerns that you are overworked?
(A)Whoever works in this directorate works more than is reasonably required of him/her and that affects efficiency. We are overwhelmed because of inadequate manpower. This is worsened because we are also losing the small manpower we have due to inadequate salary packages. But I must add that now with the creation of these specialized units, the workload has reduced considerably.

(Q)What are your other interests (if any) aside from work?
(A)I enjoy football, I am a great arsenal supporter. I enjoy praising the Lord, reading the Bible, telling others about him and being with my family. I enjoy being with my family above all. I am not a socialite and would not describe myself as such.

(Q)What is the message to your team as we conclude?
(A)Our core existence is prosecution. We need to make our impact felt so that the country feels that we are playing a meaningful role in combating crime and ensuring that people live in the assurance that law prevails.