The Court of Appeal has upheld separate criminal prosecutions against former Karamoja Affairs Minister Mary Goretti Kitutu Kimono over the Karamoja iron sheets scandal, ruling that the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Inspectorate of Government acted within their independent constitutional mandates and were not required to merge the cases into a single trial.
In the judgment, Justices Richard Buteera Kiryabwire, Christopher Gashirabake and Monica Mugenyi Kazibwe dismissed Kitutu’s appeal against the Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions, affirming an earlier High Court decision that rejected her challenge to the parallel proceedings.
The appeal arose from Miscellaneous Application No. 002 of 2024, in which Kitutu sought declarations that the two prosecutions stemming from investigations into the Karamoja supplementary budget and iron sheets programme violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution because they were founded on what she argued was the same transaction.
Instead, the appellate court found that the cases concern materially different allegations, different accused persons, different periods and different legal ingredients, meaning they do not qualify for the joinder under Uganda’s criminal procedure law.
“The two criminal prosecutions did not arise from the same transaction or substantially the same facts. They concerned different expenditure items, different periods, different accused persons and required proof of different legal ingredients,” the justices ruled.
The judgment is one of the most significant appellate rulings arising from the Karamoja iron sheets scandal, which exposed the diversion of government iron sheets that had been procured under a supplementary budget to benefit vulnerable communities in Karamoja but were allegedly distributed to ministers, Members of Parliament and other public officials instead.
The court traced the background to investigations launched after allegations emerged over the management of the Karamoja supplementary budget.
Kitutu became one of the principal figures investigated following claims that government iron sheets intended for disadvantaged households had been diverted.
She challenged the existence of two separate criminal proceedings.
One prosecution was instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions before the Anti Corruption Court, while another arose from investigations conducted by the Inspectorate of Government under its constitutional mandate.
Kitutu argued that because both matters originated from investigations into the same public programme, they should have been consolidated into one prosecution.
She further contended that subjecting her to parallel investigations, summons, searches and court appearances amounted to harassment and violated her constitutional rights.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with Kitutu’s central argument that the cases were legally inseparable.
The justices examined whether the offences arose from the same transaction as required for joinder under Uganda’s criminal procedure law and concluded they did not.
Although both matters formed part of the wider Karamoja programme, the judges said each prosecution involved separate factual questions that would require different evidence.
The court explained that overlap in background facts does not automatically transform different criminal allegations into one case.
“The statutory threshold for joinder was not met,” the judgment states.
The judges said the law requires offences to arise from the same facts or transaction before they can be combined, and that threshold had not been satisfied in Kitutu’s case.
A major question before the court was whether parallel investigations by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Inspectorate of Government amounted to an abuse of court process.
The judges held that Uganda’s Constitution deliberately creates independent institutions with distinct investigative and prosecutorial responsibilities.
“The mere existence of overlapping factual background or multiple investigatory agencies does not, without more, amount to abuse of process or breach of Article 28,” the court ruled.
The judgment stressed that neither institution loses its constitutional authority simply because another agency is investigating related matters.
Instead, each body is entitled to pursue offences falling within its own jurisdiction provided it acts lawfully.
The judges said accepting Kitutu’s argument would improperly limit constitutionally independent agencies whenever their investigations touched on a common public programme.
Kitutu also argued that defending two criminal cases simultaneously caused unfair prejudice.
She pointed to repeated summons, searches, overlapping documentary evidence and increased legal expenses.
The Court of Appeal held that those complaints did not amount to proof of a constitutional violation.
The judges observed that remedies under the Human Rights Enforcement Act are discretionary and require evidence of an actual infringement rather than inconvenience.
“General inconvenience, expense or overlapping documentary evidence do not establish a constitutional violation,” the court said.
The judges added that Kitutu failed to demonstrate that the parallel proceedings deprived her of a fair opportunity to defend herself or otherwise undermined the fairness of either trial.
The respondents had raised a preliminary objection arguing that the appeal had become incompetent because it was not heard within three months as contemplated under Section 16(2) of the Human Rights Enforcement Act.
The judges held that the three month requirement is directory rather than mandatory and therefore does not extinguish the court’s jurisdiction where the period is exceeded.
“The three month hearing directive is directory and not jurisdictional,” the justices ruled.
The court said treating the provision as mandatory would undermine access to justice where delays occur for reasons beyond the parties’ control.
Having rejected every ground of appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s earlier judgment in its entirety.
“The appeal is dismissed,” the justices ordered.
