Lawyer and activist Kakwenza Rukirabashaija has accused the High Court of deliberately frustrating his legal bid to recover his passport and end what he terms as unlawful proceedings against him.
In a detailed statement, Kakwenza said he filed High Court Application No. 0441 of 2024 on November 7, 2024, through his lawyer Eron Kiiza.
The application seeks the immediate release of his passport, which he says has been withheld since 2022, the discharge of four sureties, a refund of a cash bail bond of Sh50 million, and the termination of proceedings initiated under a law he argues has already been declared unconstitutional.
“On 7 November 2024, through counsel Mr. Eron Kiiza, I filed High Court Application No. 0441 of 2024 seeking the immediate release of my Ugandan passport unlawfully withheld since 2022, discharge of my four sureties, refund of the bail bond of 50M cash, and termination of proceedings instituted under a law already declared unconstitutional.”
According to Kakwenza, both parties submitted their arguments on February 6, 2025. However, months later, the High Court has yet to fix a hearing date, despite what he describes as repeated formal requests to the court registrar.
“Submissions by both parties were filed on 6 February 2025. Despite repeated formal requests, the High Court Registrar has, months later, refused to fix the matter for hearing.”
He argues that the delay is not administrative but intentional, framing it as a violation of his constitutional rights.
Citing Article 28(1) of Uganda’s Constitution, Kakwenza maintains that every individual is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time.
“This is not mere administrative delay but a deliberate abdication of judicial duty. Article 28(1) of the Ugandan Constitution guarantees every person a fair hearing within a reasonable time.”
The activist further referenced a 2011 Constitutional Court ruling in Karamagi Andrew & Robert Shaka v. Attorney General, which nullified Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act.
He contends that any legal proceedings based on that provision are invalid from the outset.
“The Constitutional Court… struck down Section 25 of the Computer Misuse Act as unconstitutional, rendering it void ab initio. Any proceedings under it are a legal nullity.”
Beyond domestic law, Kakwenza pointed to Uganda’s obligations under international frameworks, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
He claims the continued delay subjects him to prolonged uncertainty, restrictions on movement, and financial strain.
“The continued refusal to schedule a hearing violates not only the Constitution but Uganda’s obligations under international law… It amounts to cruel, inhuman treatment by subjecting me to perpetual uncertainty, travel bans, and financial bondage.”
Kakwenza concluded that the High Court’s inaction undermines judicial independence and risks portraying the judiciary as complicit in repression rather than a defender of constitutional rights.
“Justice delayed is justice denied. The High Court’s inaction exposes a judiciary complicit in repression rather than its constitutional guardian.”