The judge also found that the complaint did not identify a specific agreement or arrangement among the respondents that could establish a conspiracy to commit an offence.
Speaker of Parliament Warns MPs Against Interfering in Parliament Staff Verification
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an appeal by lawyer and activist Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka challenging a decision to reject his private criminal complaint against Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and 17 others over the formation and activities of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU).
In a ruling delivered on October 20, 2026, Justice Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa of the High Court Criminal Division held that Mabirizi’s complaint did not provide sufficient factual details to establish the essential elements of the alleged offences.
The judge summarily dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 59 of 2024 under Section 32(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act, upholding the May 24, 2024 decision by Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court to reject the complaint and refuse to issue criminal summons against the 18 respondents.
Mabirizi had filed the complaint following the alleged launch of the PLU at Plot 7, Sandler Lane, Naguru, Kampala, on February 7, 2024, claiming that the respondents had launched, managed or assisted in managing the organisation under Muhoozi’s leadership.
The proposed charges included managing an unlawful society, conspiracy to commit a felony, holding oneself out as a member of an unlawful society, and making speeches likely or intended to encourage support for such a society.
However, Justice Wolimbwa ruled that the complaint largely stated conclusions of criminality without providing the facts needed to support the allegations.
The judge said the complaint named the organisation, the meeting and its political objective but failed to link them to the alleged unlawful purpose, criminal agreement or speeches.
“The deficiency is real,” the judge stated, adding that the magistrate was not required to build a case for the complainant or direct investigations to establish whether a case could be made.
The court emphasised that a private complainant does not have to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt or present all witnesses before criminal summonses can be issued. However, the complaint must contain a factual account showing the elements of an offence and linking the proposed accused persons to it.
Justice Wolimbwa found that the affidavit did not explain how the PLU intended to interfere with or resist the administration of justice, as alleged, or provide facts showing that the organisation had an unlawful purpose.
The judge also found that the complaint did not identify a specific agreement or arrangement among the respondents that could establish a conspiracy to commit an offence.
On the proposed charge of membership in an unlawful society, the court held that alleged participation in a meeting could not establish the offence without first showing that the organisation itself was unlawful.
Regarding the allegation of making speeches to encourage support for an unlawful society, the judge noted that the complaint did not identify the alleged speakers or provide details of the words or substance of the speeches.
The court further rejected Mabirizi’s argument that the magistrate had erred by considering information obtained during consultations with local administrators. Justice Wolimbwa ruled that such information could be considered, although it did not relieve the magistrate of the duty to independently assess the complaint.
The judge also clarified that a magistrate’s power to order police investigations when a private complaint is insufficient is discretionary, not mandatory.
“The court is under no duty to provide that missing basis by carrying out further investigation,” the ruling stated.
Nambooze Asks PM to Reschedule National Cleaning Day Ahead of Kabaka’s Appearance
Justice Wolimbwa said the shortcomings affected the fundamental elements of all four proposed charges and could not be treated as minor errors that could be corrected by rewriting the charge sheet.
The court consequently confirmed the lower court’s decision, rejected the application for criminal summonses and declined to order further investigations or a rehearing.
The respondents named in the case included Muhoozi, Mike Mukula, Frank Kajiji Tumwebaze, Magret Muhanga, Harriet Ntabazi, Godfrey Baluku Kabyanga, Haruna Kasolo Kyeyune, Michael Mawanda Maranga, David Kabanda, Kisos Abdi Fadhil Chemaswet, Alex Ruhunda, Mapenduzi Ojara, Jimmy Lwanga, Mzee Twaha Kagabo, Fred Muhangi, Simon Muyanga Lutaaya, Cedric Babu Ndirima and Balam Ateenyi Barugahare.
The ruling was delivered electronically through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
