KAMPALA, UGANDA The Anti-Corruption Court has dismissed an application filed by Male Mabirizi against Hon. Anita Annet Among, the Speaker of Parliament, alleging money laundering under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

In August 2024, Mabirizi petitioned the Chief Magistrate Court, requesting the court to draft charge sheets accusing Anita Among of corruption and money laundering activities. Mabirizi alleges that between 2016 and 2023, Among intentionally acquired property, including a palatial residence on Mackinon Road, a house in ministers’ village in Ntinda, and Sky Hotel, while knowing that these crimes were proceeds of corruption.

Mabirizi also alleged other properties, such as her residence at Areere village, Kamutur sub-county, in Bukedea district, a Mercedes Benz with the personal number plate AAA1, a Range Rover AA3 and a Toyota Cruiser V8 (UBJ 005U).

The Chief Magistrate, acting under Section 42(7) of the Magistrates Courts Act, referred the complaint to the police for investigation, and the resulting police report dated 6th December 2024 found no prima facie evidence of an offence.

Before the police report was submitted, Mabirizi had filed two applications seeking restraining orders against dealings in the alleged land and vehicles and an order compelling the Inspector General of Police to provide ownership details, but these were dismissed alongside the main complaint on grounds that no offence had been disclosed.

Mabirizi appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Chief Magistrate had erred by relying on a police report not availed to him, by denying him an opportunity to respond to it, and by disposing of his applications prematurely. Upon review

 Hon. Justice Lawrence Gidudu held that the Chief Magistrate had acted within the law by independently verifying the complaint without involving the complainant, as permitted under Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act, and that private prosecutors have no right to compel courts to assist in gathering evidence.

A private prosecutor cannot file a shallow complaint in court and ask the court to issue orders to generate more evidence to beef up his/her complaint; what the magistrate is required to do is to verify the allegations as they appear in the complaint. That is the request made to the local chief magistrate; they may, however, ask the police to investigate the allegations. In this process, the participation of the complainant is not provided for by the law, Gidudu ruled.

Money laundering is a technical offence requiring sophisticated investigations beyond the competence of a private prosecutor. It must be a predicate offence from which proceeds of crime flow. Such complaints should be made to the police or the IGG, who have the legal authority, resources and tools to investigate and obtain sophisticated crimes such as money laundering investigations beyond the competence of a private prosecutor. Gidud emphasised.

”It is, therefore, my finding that under section 42 of the MCA’s Cap 10 19, there is no provision for a private prosecutor whose complaint has not been validated by the magistrate to make an application seeking additional evidence to support his/her claim; there is no provision in section 42 of the MCA Cap 19 for the purported motions in applications 14 and 15 of 2014. The same should have been dismissed for being incompetent, irrelevant and not provided for under the law.” Gidud said.

Justice Gidudu Tweyanze found the appeal meritless, emphasised the necessity of judicial neutrality in private prosecutions, and dismissed the appeal.