KAMPALA- High Court of International Crimes Division (ICD), has dismissed an application in which the Cultural Leader of Rwenzururu Kingdom Charles Weasley Mumbere was seeking for return of his property which was confiscated during his arrest on 27 November 2016.
The Items which Mumbere wanted court to order to be returned to him include; a personal Pistol (Israel make) which was gifted to him by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, a residential house which acted as his palace (Buhikira Royal Palace) situated on Kibanzaga Road Plot Kasese Municipality; Supreme Vehicle Toyota Land cruiser with Number Plate Omusinga , a Toyota Noah van and Pick-up lead car ford with Number Plate Royal Guards.
Mumbere wanted this items to be returned to him on grounds that Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) basing on her constitutional powers withdrawn all charges which had been slapped against him and since then he is a free man.
In her ruling, Lady Justice Alice Komuhangi Khaukha revealed that although Mumbere is a free man now, the state intends to use the confiscated property in a case against other individuals (Thembo Kitsumbire who was a Prime Minister in Rwenzururu kingdom) with whom they were facing the same charges.
“ This matter is still at the pre-trial stage and the properties the Applicant lists in his application may be exhibits that the Prosecution intends to rely on in the saidOngoing case. Making any order disposing of them at this stage may negatively affect the case in light of the contestation by the Respondent.” ruled court
On the other hand , the judge also noted that the Application is premature since Court is yet to give its ruling on the confirmation of charges and before then, handing back the listed properties in the Application to the Applicant could be prejudicial to this case if the charges are confirmed against the remaining Accused person in HCT-00-ICD-SC-0011-2018 and he has to be committed for trial.
Secondly, Article 26 of the Constitution which the Applicant seeks to rely on to claim his property right provides for compulsory deprivation of property which is not applicable in the instant case.
The Applicant has not provided this Court with any evidence in his Affidavit that he has been compulsorily deprived of his property. On the contrary, it is his evidence and confirmed by the Respondent that the said items were retrieved as exhibits during a criminal investigation.
