Last updated on August 16th, 2024 at 09:35 am
The Supreme Court of Uganda has declined to grant bail to an Applicant identified as Aryampa Jackson pending the determination of his appeal against conviction and sentence of 16 years on multiple offenses including aggravated robbery and arson rendered by the Court of Appeal.
Sitting as a single Justice, the Supreme Court’s Justice Mike Chibita (pictured) explained the court’s considerations for a grant of bail under Rule 6(2) (a) of the Supreme Court Rules noting that unlike in the lower courts, the considerations are higher and more stringent.
In the application before Justice Chibita, the Applicant sought bail on grounds that he was a first-time offender, had sound substantial sureties, had a permanent place of abode, was of advanced age, and was suffering from chronic allergic bronchitis with asthmatic components, cervical/lumbar spondylitis and cervical spasm which he contended is fatal, especially in the prison environment.
The Applicant also argued that his appeal before the Court possessed a high likelihood of success and yet the Court was likely to delay to dispose of the Appeal.
While agreeing with the Applicant that indeed he was a first-time offender, a family man with a good reputation and substantial sureties, and that his appeal contained arguable grounds according to his memorandum of appeal, the learned Justice of the Supreme Court held that those factors “recede” into the background, especially in the face of the seriousness of the offenses the Applicant faced and the likelihood of success of his appeal.
According to the Justice, in the determination of an application for bail, the Supreme Court will consider the following factors as stated in the case of Arvind Patel v. Uganda (SC Application No.1 of 2003);
The character of the applicant, whether the applicant is or not a first offender, whether the offense of which the applicant is convicted involved personal violence, the appeal must not be frivolous and has a reasonable chance of success, the possibility of a substantial delay in the determination of the appeal and whether the applicant complied with bail conditions granted before the applicant’s conviction during the pendency of the appeal.
However, the Justice noted that those factors are not exhaustive and an application for bail in the Supreme Court mainly hinges on the question of whether there exists exceptional circumstances warranting a grant of bail.
“I find that the applicant is a first-time offender, a family man with a good reputation in the community having held a position of leadership as Chairperson LCIII of Kisiita Sub-County. He also has a fixed place of abode at Kisiita Town Council, Bugangaizi East County, Kisiita East L.C.I, Kakumiro District with substantial sureties some of whom stood surety at trial. All these factors favor the applicant. However, as earlier stated, the release on bail pending appeal mainly hinges on whether there are exceptional or unusual circumstances. It is trite that such factors go to the applicant’s credit and recede to the background because there is nothing exceptional or unusual about them especially when weighed with the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood of success of the appeal…Therefore, while these factors are considered when assessing such applications, these factors alone are not compelling enough to justify release on bail pending appeal.” Justice Mike Chibita stated, citing Magombe Joshua v. Uganda (Supreme Court Application No. 11 of 2020) and Rajiv Kumar Sabharwal v. Uganda (SC Application No. 2 of
2023).
The Supreme Court, however, recognized grave illness as compelling enough a consideration to justify the grant of bail.
The Court defined a grave illness as one incapable of being treated in prison.
In his application, whereas the Applicant (Aryampa Jackson) attached a medical report by the prison’s medical superintendent confirming he suffered from the illness, the Supreme Court found that the medical report did not state whether or not the illness was incapable of being treated or managed in prison.
Consequently, the learned Justice declined to grant the Applicant bail because the only would-be exceptional circumstance in his application was not proven.
“I have perused the medical report by the Prison’s Medical Superintendent attesting to the said illness. There is no evidence in the medical report that proves the applicant’s illness as being incapable of adequate medical treatment while in custody. There is no evidence to show that he has not responded to the available medical treatment. I am therefore of the firm view that the applicant’s health can be managed by the Prison’s Authority in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. I therefore find that the applicant has not proved any exceptional circumstances to warrant my discretion. As a result, I decline to grant this application and it is accordingly dismissed. Counsel is advised to get in touch with the Registrar of the Court to ensure that the appeal is fixed for hearing at the earliest opportunity.” Justice Mike Chibita ruled.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the decision of the Supreme Court in this application illustrates that the considerations for a grant of bail in the Supreme Court are more stringent than in the High Court for example recently the High Court held that the gravity of the offense is not a consideration for it to grant bail citing the presumption of innocence.
In that sense, the considerations for a grant of bail pending appeal are different from the considerations pending trial. (See: Rajiv Kumar Sabharwal v. Uganda )
Secondly, the decision guides on what amounts to a grave illness for purposes of satisfying the “exceptional circumstance” criteria for granting bail in the Supreme Court.
Parties; Aryampa Jackson v. Uganda Counsel; Kumbuga Richard (for the Applicant), Oola Samuel (for the DPP).
