Fr. Ssekabira’s legal troubles began when he was accused of involvement in a financial scheme totaling sh500m.
Shocking Bride Price: South Sudanese Man Pays 273M, 297 Cows, Land & Scholarships for Girlfriend
Masaka High Court have today granted bail to Fr. Deusdedit Ssekabira, a Catholic priest facing a sh500m money laundering charge, amidst cheers from supporters. However, the victory was short-lived as the prosecution raised a procedural objection, claiming the High Court lacked jurisdiction.
Justice Victoria Nakintu Katamba ruled that Fr. Ssekabira met the necessary requirements for bail, citing substantial sureties and no flight risk. The State Prosecutor, Brian Kalinaki, argued that the case was improperly brought before the High Court, requesting it be returned to the Chief Magistrate’s Court.
The prosecution’s U-turn has sparked debate, with the judge set to rule on the matter at 2:00 PM. Fr. Ssekabira’s case has drawn public interest, with the community calling for a fair and speedy hearing.
The outcome hinges on a technicality: did the High Court bypass proper procedure? The answer could determine whether the case proceeds or is nullified.
Fr. Ssekabira’s legal troubles began when he was accused of involvement in a financial scheme totaling sh500m.
Under the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the State alleges that the priest handled funds while “knowing, or having reason to believe, they were proceeds of crime.”
The case has drawn significant public interest in the Masaka sub-region due to Fr. Ssekabira’s prominence.
Before this High Court appearance, the priest spent time in custody, prompting emotional calls from the local community for a “fair and speedy hearing.”
In Ugandan criminal procedure, capital offenses or complex crimes like money laundering typically start in the Magistrate’s Court for mention.
The High Court generally only takes over once the State completes investigations and “commits” the accused for trial.
By arguing “improper procedure,” the prosecution is essentially claiming that the legal “ladder” was skipped, which could nullify the case if the jurisdictional error is not corrected.
