Supreme Court of Uganda Upholds Significance of Plea Taking and Right to Fair Hearing in Landmark Ruling
In a landmark decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Uganda on January 17, 2024, the case of Uganda v Hajji Elisa Namunyu & 5 Ors (Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2020) has shed light on two fundamental aspects of criminal proceedings: the significance of plea taking and the right to a fair hearing.
“The significance of plea taking cannot be overstated. It is the foundation upon which the accused person gets to know the details of the case against them and prepares their defense,” said Justice Ruby Opio Aweri, speaking for the court.
The Supreme Court emphasized that plea taking is essential in criminal trials, as it forms the basis upon which the accused person gets to know the details of the case against them and prepares their defense. The court noted that the respondents had actively participated in the trial, raising a defense of alibi, cross-examining prosecution witnesses, and providing evidence as defense witnesses, despite the lack of a specific recording of their plea.
“The respondents’ active participation in the trial demonstrates that they had understood the charges against them and prepared their defense. Substantive justice requires that anomalies in the plea-taking process be overlooked in favor of the broader cause of justice,” said Justice Aweri.
The court also reaffirmed the fundamental right to a fair hearing, emphasizing that courts must uphold this right even in the face of procedural errors to prevent miscarriages of justice. “The failure of the Court of Appeal to accord the parties the right to address the court on an issue not raised in the memorandum of appeal was a misdirection and erroneous in law. It violated the parties’ right to a fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice,” said Justice Aweri.
The background of the case is as follows: On April 27, 2015, the respondents faced trial at the High Court in Mbale, Uganda, where they were convicted of murder under sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act. Dissatisfied with the verdict, the respondents appealed both their conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal, sitting at Masaka, discovered a critical procedural flaw: the respondents had not entered a plea during the initial trial. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the proceedings and set aside the sentences. Rather than ordering a retrial, it opted for a stay of prosecution, leading to the immediate release of the respondents.
The Supreme Court’s findings were as follows:
– “The failure of the Court of Appeal to accord the parties the right to address the court on an issue not raised in the memorandum of appeal was a misdirection and erroneous in law.”
– “The Court of Appeal’s decision violated the parties’ right to a fair hearing and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.”
– “The respondents’ active participation in the trial, despite the lack of a specific recording of their plea, demonstrated that they had understood the charges against them and prepared their defense.”
– “Substantive justice requires that anomalies in the plea-taking process be overlooked in favor of the broader cause of justice.”
The Supreme Court’s decision serves as a reminder that human rights, including the right to a fair trial, are inherent and must not be compromised by procedural technicalities. “Courts should prioritize substantive justice and ensure accused individuals have a fair opportunity to defend themselves, maintaining the integrity of the judicial process,” said Justice Aweri.
Recommended for you
