Legal Concerns About the Court's Decision in the Eron Kiiza Case

Davis Owomugisha 

Kampala, Uganda 

owomugishadavie@gmail.com 

+256759281331

7th January 2025

The Honorable Chief Justice

Supreme Court of Uganda

P.O. Box 7161

Kampala, Uganda

Dear Honorable Chief Justice,

Re: Concern Regarding the Sentencing of Lawyer Eron Kiiza and Request for Review

I am writing to you as a concerned citizen deeply committed to the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law in Uganda. It is with this commitment in mind that I am compelled to express my concern over the recent sentencing of lawyer Eron Kiiza, who was sentenced to nine months in Kitalya Maximum Prison for contempt of court following an incident during the trial of Dr. Kizza Besigye and Lutale Obeid at the Makindye Court Martial on January 7, 2025.

I fully understand the importance of maintaining respect for the judiciary and ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted in an orderly manner. As the Judiciary is a pillar of democracy, we all must abide by the court's procedures and decisions. However, I respectfully question whether the severity of the sentence handed down to Mr. Kiiza is truly in line with the principles of justice and proportionality under Ugandan law.

The offense of contempt of court is governed by the Penal Code Act, Cap. 120, specifically under Section 109, which outlines that:

"Any person who wilfully insults, disrespects, or disrupts the court during proceedings, or disobeys a lawful order of the court, commits contempt of court and is liable on conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both."

While Mr. Kiiza's actions, as reported, may be seen as disrespectful, the principle of proportionality demands that the punishment should reflect the nature of the offense. The Penal Code provides a range of sentences, including a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. A sentence of nine months, particularly one served in a maximum-security prison, appears excessive when compared to the provisions of the law.

In judicial matters, one of the fundamental principles is that of proportionality—the punishment should be fitting to the offense committed. The European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Engel v. Netherlands (1976), held that:

"The punishment must not exceed the gravity of the offense committed."

In Uganda, this principle is enshrined in Article 23(6) of the 1995 Constitution, which states:

"A person shall not be subjected to excessive, disproportionate or degrading punishment."

The nine-month sentence imposed on Mr. Kiiza seems to exceed what would be deemed proportional for his actions, which, according to available reports, involved a verbal altercation with a court orderly and an attempt to sit at the defense table. The offense appears to be a momentary lapse in decorum rather than a severe disruption of the court’s proceedings.

Under Section 116 of the Penal Code Act, the court has discretion to impose alternative penalties, including fines or lesser forms of detention. A prison sentence, particularly of such length, should be a measure of last resort, especially when less severe alternatives are available. In this case, a warning, a fine, or even a brief detention would have been more appropriate.

Furthermore, I am concerned about the broader implications of this incident for the right to legal representation and access to justice. As per Article 28(3) of the Constitution of Uganda, "In the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, a person shall be entitled to a fair, speedy, and public hearing by an independent and impartial court." The decision to sentence Mr. Kiiza appears to have been made under circumstances where his actions were, in his own words, an attempt to fulfill his duty as a legal representative. It raises questions about whether his rights to perform his professional duties were fully respected.

While I do not wish to minimize the importance of maintaining order in the court, I respectfully suggest that the court's decision may be an overreach. The use of military police to forcibly remove Mr. Kiiza, along with the sentencing to a maximum-security prison, raises concerns about the broader implications for the rights of legal professionals, the accused, and the public. Such actions could be seen as potentially infringing on the right to access justice, as guaranteed under Article 28 of the Constitution.

Moreover, the imposition of a nine-month sentence appears to undermine the principle of fair trial proceedings and access to competent legal representation, which is an essential cornerstone of a just legal system.

Given these considerations, I respectfully request that the relevant authorities, including the Chief Justice, review the circumstances surrounding this case. I urge that the principle of proportionality, as enshrined in both domestic and international law, be considered in reviewing the decision. A reconsideration of the sentence would not only uphold the rights of Mr. Kiiza but also strengthen the trust of the public in the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and justice.

I humbly request that this case be revisited with the goal of ensuring that justice is served in a manner that reflects both the severity of the offense and the rights of all involved parties. The law is meant to serve the people, and it is imperative that it be applied in a manner that is both fair and just.

I look forward to your attention to this matter and trust that the judiciary will ensure that justice is served in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of Ugandan law.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours sincerely,

Davis Owomugisha, social justice activist, creative writer and law student