Download this publication - PULP
Download this publication - PULP
Download this publication - PULP
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
EAST AFRICAN COURT OF JUSTICE<br />
Katabazi and Others v Secretary-General of the<br />
East African Community and Another<br />
(2007) AHRLR 119 (EAC 2007)<br />
James Katamazi and 21 Others v Secretary-General of the East<br />
African Community and the Attorney-General of the Republic of<br />
Uganda<br />
East African Court of Justice at Arusha, reference 1 of 2007, 1<br />
November 2007<br />
Judges: Keiwua, Mulenga, Ramadhani, Arach-Amoko, Nsekela<br />
Whether the invasion of a Ugandan High Court by armed<br />
government agents, the re-arrest of the complainants granted<br />
bail by the High Court and their incarceration in prison constitute<br />
infringement of the EAC Treaty<br />
Jurisdiction (res judicata, 30-32; human rights, 33-39)<br />
Rule of law (separation of powers, 45, 53, 54)<br />
Fair trial (independence of courts, 47-54)<br />
Remedies (responsibility of EAC Secretary-General, 59-62)<br />
[1.] This is a reference by sixteen persons against the Secretary-<br />
General of the East African Community as the 1st respondent and the<br />
Attorney-General of Uganda as the 2nd respondent.<br />
[2.] The story of the claimants is that: during the last quarter of<br />
2004 they were charged with treason and misprision of treason and<br />
consequently they were remanded in custody. However, on 16<br />
November 2006, the High Court granted bail to fourteen of them.<br />
Immediately thereafter the High Court was surrounded by security<br />
personnel who interfered with the preparation of bail documents and<br />
the fourteen were re-arrested and taken back to jail.<br />
[3.] On 24 November 2006 all the claimants were taken before a<br />
military General Court Martial and were charged with offences of<br />
unlawful possession of firearms and terrorism. Both offences were<br />
based on the same facts as the previous charges for which they had<br />
been granted bail by the High Court. All claimants were again<br />
remanded in prison by the General Court Martial.<br />
119