Nicholas Opiyo v Uganda

An important ruling for all criminal practitioners (prosecution and defence) to take note of. In the case of Nicholas Opiyo V Uganda, Gidudu J has made it clear that Courts should protect accused persons' right to a fair and speedy trial enshrined in Art.28(1) of the Constitution.

Once a criminal case is lodged in Court, Courts have "constitutional and statutory powers" to prevent delay and abuse of process. "It isn't open to the prosecution to literally deposit its case in court and go to sleep." Courts can and must demand that cases proceed.

"Delay is not legally defined but is measured according to the circumstances of each case". The prosecution must inform Court of the "vital steps taken to complete investigations" in order that Court may decide whether to grant an adjournment or not.

"Ideally investigations should precede arrest and charging." So "This song of 'investigations are incomplete' is not itself sufficient cause to warrant an adjournment".

This ruling is a useful addition to the criminal practitioners' arsenal of precedents. Many cases take far too long in pre-trial stages as cases are filed in court before any meaningful investigations have been carried out. The gap also opens the system to abuse.

Defence counsel should be vigilant and guard against abuse of process by unwarranted or even cynical delays. Remember "The time the State is permitted by Court to get ready to prosecute depends on the reasons it demonstrates regarding the progress of investigations."

Court must be informed of the status of investigations and must exercise judicial discretion in the granting of each adjournment.

See tweet;

https://twitter.com/dfkm1970/status/1435880525172989952?s=19