KAMPALA, Uganda | The Court of Appeal of Uganda has dismissed Geoffrey Kazinda’s application seeking to halt ongoing criminal proceedings against him, citing the Supreme Court’s stay of execution. This decision marks another turn in a complex legal battle involving the former Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, whose case has raised important issues about fair trial rights and judicial processes.

Geoffrey Kazinda has been facing a series of corruption-related charges stemming from his tenure as Principal Accountant. The charges include fraud, illicit enrichment, and misuse of public funds, all brought under the Anti-Corruption Act. Kazinda initially faced prosecution in several cases in 2012, and 2013. These cases were later consolidated and amended, with the most recent charge being Criminal Case 59 of 2016, involving allegations of illicit wealth.

In 2014, Kazinda filed Constitutional Petition, arguing that the multiple prosecutions were unfair and amounted to a violation of his constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution of Uganda. He sought an order from the Constitutional Court to permanently stop the State from prosecuting him on charges based on the same facts linked to his former employment.

In August 2020, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of Kazinda, ordering a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings against him. The court found that the successive trials violated his right to a fair and speedy trial as guaranteed by the Constitution. The decision provided Kazinda with temporary relief, halting prosecutions.

However, the Attorney General challenged this ruling, filing an appeal with the Supreme Court. In February 2021, the Supreme Court issued a stay of execution, effectively suspending the enforcement of the Constitutional Court’s orders until the appeal could be heard and determined.

In light of the Supreme Court’s stay of execution, Kazinda filed an application with the Court of Appeal, arguing that the State’s continued prosecution of Criminal Case 59 of 2016, among others, was in contempt of the Constitutional Court’s orders. He contended that the stay of execution did not authorize the continuation of the prosecutions and sought a declaration that the Attorney General, along with other prosecutorial bodies, was in contempt.

The Court of Appeal, sitting as the Constitutional Court, concluded that the actions of the Attorney General and the prosecutorial bodies did not amount to contempt of court, as the stay of execution legally permitted them to continue with the prosecutions pending the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

For now, the legal proceedings against Geoffrey Kazinda will continue, pending the outcome of the appeal in the Supreme Court.

For Kazinda, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Will the highest court in the land grant him relief, or will it order him to go back and face each charge leveled against him? The decision will not only impact his life but also set a precedent on whether the State can prefer successive criminal challenges based on the same facts.