The Nakawa Magistrates Court has granted cash bail of Shs500,000 to John Mary Ssebuwufu, the Deputy Chairperson of the National Unity Platform Election Management Committee, who is facing charges of incitement to violence. Ssebuwufu is charged under Section 79(1) of the Penal Code Act, which criminalizes acts that incite others to commit violence. In a […]
The Nakawa Magistrates Court has granted cash bail of Shs500,000 to John Mary Ssebuwufu, the Deputy Chairperson of the National Unity Platform Election Management Committee, who is facing charges of incitement to violence.
Ssebuwufu is charged under Section 79(1) of the Penal Code Act, which criminalizes acts that incite others to commit violence.
In a detailed ruling delivered at the Nakawa court, the presiding Grade one magistrate Sanula Namboozo analyzed the legal principles governing bail applications, insisting that although the court retains discretion, the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to apply for bail and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
The court premised on Article 23(6)(a) and Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda 1995, which guarantee personal liberty and the right of an accused person to apply for bail pending trial.
During the bail hearing, defence lawyer John Paul Kakande, told court that Ssebuwufu had been detained since 14 January 2026 and allegedly held incommunicado before he was eventually produced before court on 6 February 2026.
The defence argued that such detention violated constitutional protections relating to personal liberty and the prohibition of torture.
Counsel quoted the Constitutional Court decision in Besigye vs Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 7 of 2007, where the court maintained that judges should not automatically remand suspects where there is evidence of violations of non-derogable rights.
The defence also described Ssebuwufu as a responsible public figure with strong community ties.
Counsel told court that the accused serves as Lord Councillor for Nakawa I Constituency, is Head of Laity at St Andrew Kaggwa Catholic Parish, and is a family man with seven school-going children.
The defence presented four sureties, all described as responsible individuals with permanent residences and known standing in their communities.
However, the State Attorney opposed the bail application, arguing that investigations into the case were still ongoing.
The prosecution also dismissed allegations of illegal detention and urged the court to remand the accused pending completion of inquiries. In the alternative, the State asked the court to impose stringent bail conditions if the application was granted.
In its ruling, the court noted that bail is anchored in constitutional principles but remains subject to judicial discretion.
The magistrate referred to earlier constitutional decisions including Uganda v Kizabesigye Constitutional Reference No 20 of 2005 and Foundation for Human Rights Initiative v Attorney General Constitutional Petition No 20 of 2006, which affirm that courts must balance the rights of the accused with the interests of justice.
The ruling also referenced the Constitution (Bail Guidelines for Courts of Judicature) Practice Directions Legal Notice No. 8 of 2022, which outline the principles that courts should consider when determining bail applications.
According to the guidelines, courts must assess several factors including: whether the accused has a fixed place of residence, whether the accused has substantial sureties, whether the accused is likely to interfere with witnesses or investigations
On the issue of residence, the court found that Ssebuwufu had sufficiently demonstrated that he has a known place of residence within the jurisdiction of the court.
The defence presented a letter of introduction from the LC1 chairperson confirming that the accused resides in Kasana Zone, Kyanja Parish, Nakawa Division in Kampala.
The court said this information allows authorities to trace the accused if required.
“With a well-known address in terms of zone, parish, division and district, the applicant’s whereabouts can definitely be traced,” the magistrate noted.
However, the court raised concerns about the failure by the defence to present the original National Identity Card of the accused.
The magistrate noted that although a photocopy of the ID had been presented in court, the document had not been uploaded onto the Integrated Case Management Information System (ICMIS), which is now mandatory for official court records.
The court warned that failure to verify the identity of an accused person could create serious legal concerns.
“Without identification there is uncertainty about who the person actually is. Verification of the applicant’s identity becomes difficult for the court,” the magistrate said.
The ruling further observed that lack of proper identification could increase the risk that an accused person might abscond from trial or evade supervision by court authorities.
However, the court said it would give the accused the benefit of doubt, noting that national identity cards are sensitive personal documents and are usually kept by their owners.
“In the interest of justice the court shall give the applicant the benefit of doubt and consider him identified in the interim,” the magistrate ruled.
The court also reviewed the four proposed sureties presented by the defence.
They included: a biological brother of the accused who operates a hardware business, a civil and electrical engineer who owns an engineering company, an LC1 chairperson and councillor from Nakawa Division
a businessman dealing in agricultural produce from Mukono District
Each of the sureties presented letters from their respective LC1 chairpersons and provided national identity cards that were verified in court.
The magistrate said their relationship with the accused and standing within their communities made them credible guarantors.
“This fact enhances their commitment to ensuring that the applicant complies with the conditions of bail,” the court noted.
On the issue of possible interference with witnesses, the court ruled that the prosecution had failed to provide evidence supporting the claim. Since no such evidence was presented, the court dismissed the prosecution’s argument.
After analyzing the law, evidence and submissions from both sides, the court ruled that the applicant had met the requirements for bail.
However, the magistrate imposed several conditions.
Ssebuwufu was ordered to: Pay Shs500,000 cash bail, Present four sureties each bonded at Shs5 million
Pay Shs10 million if he absconds from court, Submit a copy of his National Identity Card for verification
Deposit his passport with court until the case is concluded
The magistrate allowed the bail application and directed that the accused be released once the conditions are fulfilled.
The case will continue before the Nakawa Magistrate’s Court as investigations into the alleged incitement charges proceed.
