Court orders speedy investigation into money laundering allegations against president

The head of the High Court’s Anti-Corruption Division, Justice Lawrence Gidudu, has ordered the Chief Magistrate to expedite the disposal of maverick lawyer Male Mabirizi’s complaint accusing President Anita Among of money laundering money and determine its merits within three months.
The order follows an appeal filed by Mabirizi after the trial court dismissed criminal charges he had filed privately against the Bukedea MP.

On August 15, 2023, Mabirizi submitted a letter to the Chief Magistrate of the Anti-Corruption Court, accusing Ms. Among of acquiring properties through corrupt means between 2016 and 2023. These properties include a lavish residence on Mackinnon Road, Nakasero, Kampala central division. ; a residential house in the village of ministers, Ntinda, Nakawa division; Sky Hotel International, a 3 star hotel in Kyaddondo, Plot 1423, Ntinda, off Naalya Road, Mugisha Road, Nakawa Division; a lavish upcountry residence in Aereere village, Kamutur sub-county, Bukedea district; a Toyota Land Cruiser V8 (registration number UBJ 005U); Mercedes Benz vehicles with personalized registration numbers AAA 1 and AAA 2; and a Range Rover registered AAA 3.

In his case, Mabirizi requested that the court summon the President to plead, be charged and tried for money laundering based on allegations of defrauding taxpayers. Initially, the case was registered as case number 89 of 2023, but was later changed to miscellaneous case number 004 of 2024.

On March 7, 2024, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the case, citing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case against Ms. Among.
Unhappy with the rejection, Mabirizi appealed to the High Court, arguing that the Chief Magistrate erred in changing the case registration number, claiming incompetence and failing to refer the matter to the High Court . He further claimed that the complaint or supporting affidavit revealed a prima facie case of money laundering against Among. Mabirizi asked the High Court to set aside the chief magistrate’s decision and grant his requests.

On Tuesday, Justice Gidudu ruled that the chief magistrate erred in transforming Mabirizi’s complaint from a criminal matter into a miscellaneous application. He further noted that the Chief Magistrate wrongly placed the burden of proof on Mabirizi to substantiate his complaint with evidence, contrary to the legal procedure. The court clarified that a complaint does not require attachments or evidence to validate the allegations under the Trial Courts Act.

Justice Gidudu stressed that the magistrate must investigate the complaint, possibly consult local authorities or direct police investigations.
“It is clear that in his decision dated March 7, 2024, the Chief Magistrate imposed the duty on the appellant/Mabirizi to substantiate his complaint with evidence, but it is the duty of the court to investigate the complaint emanating either from a local headman or the police before determining whether prima facie the commission of an offense has been disclosed or not,” Justice Gidudu said.

The judge explained that if the chief magistrate is satisfied that the charges are not vexatious or frivolous, formal charges should be drawn up and the matter should proceed to a plea hearing following a summons or warrant of arrest. Alternatively, the case could be transferred to the competent court by way of referral.

Although the court rejected Mabirizi’s argument that the chief magistrate had jurisdiction to try the case, it allowed the complaint to proceed. The anti-money laundering law gives jurisdiction to the High Court, but the chief magistrate must still deal with the complaint and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant charges. The case was referred to the Chief Magistrate for processing, with instructions to expedite the process and determine its merits within three months from the date of judgment.