[1993] UGSC 10

[1993] UGSC 10

The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they had been granted a presidential pardon. The evidence presented was largely hearsay and circumstantial, lacking any direct or documentary proof of a signed instrument of pardon as required by constitutional and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1993] UGSC 10
Parties
Appellant: Brigadier Smith Opon Acak; Appellant: Ahmed Ogeny; Respondent: Uganda
Court
Supreme Court of Uganda
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
4 November 1993
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Plea in Bar
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Presidential Pardon, Plea in Bar, Prerogative of Mercy, Criminal Procedure, Amnesty Statute
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Presidential Pardon Plea in Bar Prerogative of Mercy Criminal Procedure Amnesty Statute

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brigadier Smith Opon Acak

Appellant

Ahmed Ogeny

Appellant

Uganda

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From High Court Ruling on Plea in Bar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants had been granted a presidential pardon barring further criminal proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to allow the appellants to give evidence in support of their plea of pardon.
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial or hearsay evidence is sufficient to prove the existence of a presidential pardon.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they had been granted a presidential pardon. The evidence presented was largely hearsay and circumstantial, lacking any direct or documentary proof of a signed instrument of pardon as required by constitutional and statutory provisions. The general amnesty and public statements did not amount to a specific pardon for the appellants, who were excluded from release as rebel leaders. The High Court's refusal to allow the appellants to testify was not fatal, as their affidavits were considered on appeal and did not alter the evidential deficiency. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the...

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The orders of the High Court are upheld.