Court Denies Mandatory Bail to Mufumbiro and Co-accused

The Kawempe Chief Magistrates Court sitting in Kanyanya has dismissed an application for mandatory bail by ten National Unity Platform (NUP) supporters who have been on remand for more than sixty days without the commencement of their trial.

The magistrate has ruled that the lapse of time alone does not automatically entitle an accused person to release. In a ruling delivered by Grade One Magistrate Damalie Agumaasiimwe on Monday, the court held that although the applicants had met the constitutional threshold of sixty days on remand, it retained the duty to evaluate whether their release would be consistent with the interests of justice, public safety, and the integrity of the criminal process.

Those who have been denied bail are: Edward Ssebufu, commonly known as Eddie Mutwe, Achileo Kivumbi, Calvin Tasi, also known as Bobi Giant, Edwin Sserukuma, also known as Eddy King Kabejja, Sharif Lukenge, Yasin Nyanzi, Tonny Kawesi, Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro, Saudah Madaada, also known as AIGP Madaada, and Doreen Kaija. These are jointly charged with NUP die-hard Olivia Lutaaya, who did not apply for mandatory bail because she had not yet clocked 60 days in custody.

The group is jointly charged with conducting unlawful military drilling at NUP headquarters on February 12, 2025, at Makerere Kavule during a parade on NUP presidential candidate Robert Ssentamu Kyagulanyi’s birthday. Through their lawyers, led by Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa and Kato Tumusiime, the accused applied for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(b) of the Constitution, Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act, and Regulation 9 of the Bail Guidelines, arguing that their continued detention beyond sixty days without trial violated their constitutional right to liberty.

The hearing of the main case has not yet commenced, and all accused persons have been on remand beyond the constitutionally prescribed period. According to evidence before the court, Eddie Mutwe and Kivumbi had spent about ninety days on remand; King Kabejja, Sharif Lukenge, Yasin Nyanzi, and Kaweesi about seventy days; Mufumbiro and Madaada about sixty-eight days; and Kaija about sixty-two days. The prosecution did not challenge these facts.

The defence argued that the law imposes a mandatory obligation on court to release an accused person once sixty days have elapsed without the start of trial and relied on previous court decisions to support their argument. They also raised health concerns, particularly regarding the ninth applicant, Sauda Madaada, and requested access to medical care outside detention. On the other hand, the prosecution, represented by Chief State Attorney Sharon Nambuya and Bruce Twongirwe, opposed the application, contending that mandatory bail is not synonymous with automatic release. 

They argued that the court must balance the rights of the accused against public interest, security considerations, protection of witnesses, and the orderly administration of justice. The prosecution emphasized that the offences are serious, arise in a sensitive context, and that there is a real risk of interference with witnesses if the accused are released before trial commences.

Magistrate Agumaasiimwe agreed that all ten applicants had satisfied the sixty-day threshold required for consideration of mandatory bail. However, she rejected the defence argument that the lapse of time alone removes the court’s discretion to refuse bail. She held that the Constitution, the Magistrates Courts Act, and the Bail Guidelines require a holistic approach that protects personal liberty while safeguarding public interest and the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The magistrate stated that once sixty days lapse, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate compelling reasons for continued detention, but this does not extinguish the court’s duty to deny bail where credible and weighty reasons exist. She agreed with the prosecution that courts must guard against abuse of bail, particularly in circumstances where there are concerns about witness interference, public security, and the orderly commencement of trial.

On the specific facts of the case, the court found that the prosecution had raised credible concerns regarding witness interference, noting that the case has not yet commenced and that the stage before trial is when such risks are highest. The court also observed unresolved issues regarding disclosure, hence the need to protect the integrity of the proceedings. Although several of the sureties presented by the accused appeared substantial and traceable, the court held that the suitability of sureties alone could not outweigh the risks identified by the prosecution.

Magistrate Agumaasiimwe emphasized that where credible concerns exist, the court must prioritize the interests of justice over release. Consequently, the court dismissed the application by all ten accused persons, while directing the prosecution to conclude or reconcile disclosure without delay and to take all necessary steps to ensure the trial commences at the earliest opportunity.

The Officer in Charge of the prison facility was also ordered to ensure that all accused persons receive prompt medical attention where necessary, with specific emphasis on appropriate care for the ninth applicant, Sauda Madaada. This is not the first time these individuals have been denied bail. Some, including Eddy Mutwe and Kivumbi, also face robbery-related charges in a separate case before the Masaka Chief Magistrates Court. 

Alex Mufumbiro, the NUP flag bearer for Nakawa East Constituency, also has pending charges in Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court, where he will return on January 6, 2026, ahead of the January 15 elections. The case at Kawempe will return on January 7, 2026, and the accused have been further remanded until then. At the time of filing, the magistrate had not yet communicated the next court date to the defence lawyers. All accused have denied the charges, but their multiple bail applications have been rejected by the courts.