The right to bail pending trial in Uganda

J. D. Mujuzi
{"title":"The right to bail pending trial in Uganda","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.47348/sacj/v34/i3a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) states that an arrested person is ‘entitled’ to apply to court for bail (discretionary bail). Articles 23(b) and (c) require a court to release on bail a person who has been awaiting trial in custody for a specified number of days (mandatory bail). Jurisprudence of Ugandan courts on bail pending trial shows that courts have dealt with two main issues: the right to bail or to apply for bail; and the conditions for granting of discretionary bail pending trial. The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to apply for bail. In this article, the author argues that the drafting history of Article 23(6)(a) shows that an accused has a right to bail (as opposed to just apply for bail). The author also demonstrates how courts have been inconsistent in many cases when dealing with the conditions for granting of discretionary bail pending trial. It is argued further that since the Ugandan government is increasingly re-arresting opposition politicians who have been granted bail by the high court, Ugandan courts may explore the possibility of granting anticipatory bail. It is also argued that the drafting history of Articles 129(d) and 210 of the Constitution shows that courts martial are courts of judicature and subordinate to the high court which means, inter alia, that the high court has the power to release an accused on bail should the general court martial refuse to release him/her on bail.","PeriodicalId":256796,"journal":{"name":"South African journal of criminal justice","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African journal of criminal justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/sacj/v34/i3a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995) states that an arrested person is ‘entitled’ to apply to court for bail (discretionary bail). Articles 23(b) and (c) require a court to release on bail a person who has been awaiting trial in custody for a specified number of days (mandatory bail). Jurisprudence of Ugandan courts on bail pending trial shows that courts have dealt with two main issues: the right to bail or to apply for bail; and the conditions for granting of discretionary bail pending trial. The Supreme Court has held that an accused has a right to apply for bail. In this article, the author argues that the drafting history of Article 23(6)(a) shows that an accused has a right to bail (as opposed to just apply for bail). The author also demonstrates how courts have been inconsistent in many cases when dealing with the conditions for granting of discretionary bail pending trial. It is argued further that since the Ugandan government is increasingly re-arresting opposition politicians who have been granted bail by the high court, Ugandan courts may explore the possibility of granting anticipatory bail. It is also argued that the drafting history of Articles 129(d) and 210 of the Constitution shows that courts martial are courts of judicature and subordinate to the high court which means, inter alia, that the high court has the power to release an accused on bail should the general court martial refuse to release him/her on bail.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在乌干达候审期间保释的权利
《乌干达宪法》(1995年)第23(6)(a)条规定,被捕者“有权”向法院申请保释(酌情保释)。第23条(b)款和(c)款要求法院对被羁押候审一定天数的人予以保释(强制保释)。乌干达法院关于候审保释的判例表明,法院处理了两个主要问题:保释或申请保释的权利;以及准予审前自由保释的条件。最高法院裁定被告有权申请保释。在这条中,发件人争辩说,第23条第6款(a)项的起草历史表明,被告有权获得保释(而不是仅仅申请保释)。作者还表明,法院在处理准予审前自由保释的条件时,在许多案件中是如何前后矛盾的。又有人认为,由于乌干达政府越来越多地重新逮捕已获得高等法院保释的反对派政治家,乌干达法院可探讨准予预审保释的可能性。还有人认为,《宪法》第129(d)条和第210条的起草历史表明,军事法院是司法法院,隶属于高等法院,这意味着,除其他外,如果普通军事法院拒绝将被告保释,高等法院有权将其保释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comment: Telephonic entrapment Recent Case: General Principles and Specific Offences Defining the contours of a ‘criminal gang’ and a ‘pattern of criminal gang activity’ under the Prevention of Organised Crime Act Victimisation and challenges to integration: Transitional justice response to children born of war in northern Uganda Covid-19-related criminalisation in South Africa
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1