FIRM F6

FILE No. 2
BRIEF FACTS

The late Girado Senki of Madirisa Nansana, died on the 10th day of September 2024, leaving
behind six children; Truth, Charcha, Chaga, Chichi, Oke and Baliks. The deceased had been
given land by his mother when still alive. In July 2024, Chaga Mapeera informed the family that
their deceased father had given him land on 10/9/2024, at 11:30 Hrs. Chaga then proceeded to
evict Daliso Truth from the said land. He threatened to beat her, threw a spear at her, which she
dodged and reported the incident to the chairman LC1 who advised her to report the matter to
police. As a result, Changa and other 2 suspects were arrested. Daliso Truth and the rest of the
family members were surprised to learn that Chaga had a purported document (agreement),
claiming that their late father had given him the land in question. The purported agreement was
taken to the department of forensics, together with other sample signatures and handwriting of
the deceased. The resultant report showed that the agreement had not been written or signed
by the deceased.

ISSUES

1. Whether the facts disclose any possible offences and if the evidence on record can
prove the identified offences?
2. Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to support the suggested offences in issue
1 above?
3. What are the necessary court documents to initiate court proceedings?
4. What pretrial remedies are available for the suspects?
5. What are the necessary court documents to obtain the above pretrial remedies?
6. What is the appropriate procedure for recording an extra judicial statement?

LAW APPLICABLE

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (As Amended).

2. The Penal code Act, Cap.128
3. The Police Act, Cap 324
4. The Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap .122
5. The Evidence Act Cap. 8
6. Case law
Issue one 1. Whether the facts disclose any possible offences and the evidence on
record can prove the identified offences.

1. UTTERING FALSE DOCUMENT contrary to Section 238 of the Penal Code Act,
Cap. 128.

Section 238 of the Penal code act, Cap. 128, provides that “Any person knowingly and
fraudulently utters a false document commits an offence and is liable on conviction to
imprisonment for a term of 3 years.1 Therefore the prosecution has to prove the following;

Ingredients of the offence

● Falsity of the document.

● Knowledge of the falsity of the document.
● Presentation of the false document.

Therefore, in the instant case, the suspect Chagga Mapeera is claiming that the land in question
was given to him by his father in writing. However, this purported agreement/document was
examined by the experts and it was found to be false, as highlighted in the statement of the
investigating officer.

So, we shall rely on the statement of the Investigating officer, Statement of Chagga Mapeera
the accused/suspect, and that of Golden Batume, and finally the report of the handwriting expert
to prove that Chagga Mapeera forged the agreement he wants to rely on to take over the land in
issue.

2. DEMANDING PROPERTY WITH MENACES contrary to Section 274 of the Penal

Code Act Cap.128

Section 274 of the Penal code act, Cap. 128, provides that “Any person who with intent to
steal any valuable thing demanding it from any person with force/menaces commits a felony
and is liable for 5 years imprisonment.

Ingredients of the offence

● Valuable thing/property.
● Demanding that valuable thing/property using force.
● With intention to steal that property/thing.

In the current case, Chagga Mapeera using force to evict Truth from her house, he also had the
help of some gangsters. Truth’s statement highlights the incidents that infer these actions.

1
Section328 of the Penal Code Act
 3. Common assault

In the case of Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner2 the court defined assault to mean any
act which intentionally or possibly recklessly causes another person to apprehend immediate
and unlawful personal violence. Common assault is provided for under section 218 of the Penal
Code Act, Cap 128, which is to the effect that any person who unlawfully assaults another
commits a misdemeanour and if the assault is not committed in circumstance for which a
greater punishment is provided in this code, is liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term of
one year.

The House of Lords in Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner, held that an act to
amount to common assault the following elements have to be proved by prosecution for one to
be convicted of assault.

1. Apprehension of an intention to use force/ violence. The victim need not be put in fear
but must be aware that they are about to be subjected to violence. Where the victim apprehends
immediate unlawful personal violence, an assault will be committed even if there was no actual
threat of violence. In Logdon V DPP (1976), the defendant pointed an imitation of a gun at a
woman in jest. She was terrified. The defendant then told her it wasn’t real. It was held that an
assault had been committed, as the victim had apprehended immediate unlawful personal
violence and the defendant was reckless as to whether she would apprehend such violence.

2. Unlawful act. If the defendant has a lawful excuse to use force, the actions will not amount to
assault. This includes; reasonable punishment of a child, where the victim consents, where the
victim acts in self-defence or prevention of crime.

3. Personal violence. The apprehended force must be on the person of the victim himself and
not another.

In accordance with the facts at hand, on 10th/09/2024 at about 11:30 Hrs Chaga came to
demolish the land where Truth Daliso was staying, which land was given to them by their
deceased father with guidance that the land belonged to their grandmother. He told them to use
the land but never to sell it. Unfortunately, Chaga threatened to beat Truth Daliso because she
refused to vacate the land. He also threw a spear s at her, but being at a distance she dodged
it. This chain of events amounted to common assault.

4. FORGERY.

2
(1996)1 QB 439
Section 319 of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128, forgery is defined to mean making of a false
document with intent to defraud or to deceive. Forgery was further discussed by Justice Mubiru
in UGANDA Vs OBURA RONALD 3 Ors,3 (High Court at Gulu), to entail the making of false
documents with intent to defraud or deceive and prove that the document was made by the
accused person. Ingredients of fraud include the making of false documents, with intent to
defraud and the accused person making the documents.

According to the facts before us Mapeera came up with documents to prove that his late father
had transferred this land to him in 2023 before he died, yet at first when they asked him to avail
the said documents, he said he had none. He later showed up with the purported documents.
The police asked him to avail the same. The documents were not authentic, and he had no
witnesses to attest their authenticity, thus amounting to forgery. However one should note that
the burden of proof lies on the prosecution, Woolmington vs DPP [1935], it was established
that the prosecution has the legal onus of proving beyond reasonable doubt, this is further
explained in section 103 of the Evidence Act, Cap. 8, which states that the burden of proof as
to any particular facts lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence,
unless it is provided by any law that the proof of the fact shall lie on a particular person.
Therefore, the burden of proof in this instance, lies on the prosecution to prove the offence of
forgery. General punishment for forgery is provided under section 324 of the Penal Code Act
Cap 128, which provides that any person who forges any document commits an offence which
unless otherwise stated is felony and is liable on conviction unless owing to the circumstances
of the forgery or nature of the thing forged some, other punishment is provided, is liable to
imprisonment for a term of three years.

5. CRIMINAL TRESPASS

The offence of Criminal trespass contrary to section 302 of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 128.
The ingredients were also discussed in the case of Uganda vs. Kinyera Walter, Okot Bosco,
Oyoo Franco and Ocaya Jackson (High Court Criminal Session Case No. 0374 of 2018),
Justice Mubiru held that criminal trespass is committed when there is:

1. Intentional entry onto property in the possession of another.

2. The entry was unlawful or without authorization.
3. The entry was for an unlawful purpose.
4. The accused entered the land.

Justice Mubiru defined possession in the following words: Possession is intended to be

possession at the time of entry, and it does not imply that the person in possession must be
present at the actual time of entry…. It is worthy of noting that the, party lawfully entitled to

possession has a right to private defence of the property, embedded in the defence of bonafide
claim of right under section 7 of the Penal Code Act;

3
Cr App No. 007 0f 2019
Possession within this section refers to effective physical or manual control or occupation,
evidenced by some outward act, sometimes called de facto possession or detention, as distinct
from a legal right to possession.

The offence of criminal trespass is meant primarily to protect the lawful possession of property
that gives meaning to the right to property protected under Article 26(1) of the Constitution.
However, for possession to be protected, the prosecution must establish that the complainant is
in actual as opposed to constructive possession. The complainant must have taken possession
of the land, and they need not be physically present when committing the offence. Interfering
with the complainant’s intention to exclude and in accordance with the facts at hand we see
Chaga trying to use force to evict Truth from her house, he even had help from some gangsters.

6. Offence Of Threatening Violence.

Section 77 of The Penal Code Act, Cap 128, provides for any person who;

(i) With intent to intimidate or annoy any person, threatens to injure, assault, shoot
or kill any person, or to burn, break or injure any property,

(ii) With intent to alarm any person, discharges a firearm or commits any other
breach of the peace, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding four (4) years.

In the case of Alupo Vs Uganda4court held that prosecution has to prove the above stated
ingredients to secure conviction of this offence and the same was held in the case of Acaya Vs
Uganda5, it was stated that mere words are not enough, the words must be coupled with an
action causing imminent threat of harm. It was further stated that the intention to intimidate may
be gathered from utterances, conduct and surrounding circumstances and in the accordance to
the facts at hand, on 10th/09/2024 at about 11:30 Hrs Chaga threatened to beat Truth Daliso, he
also threw a spear at her, but being at a distance she dodged it which amounted to threatening
violence as discussed above.

TASK 2.

4
(2012) UGHC 218
5
HCCA No.0010 of 2018
Suppose you find evidence inadequate, identify areas that require investigations, if any
and advise the police accordingly.

Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to support the suggested offences?

Statement of Truth Daliso (Complainant)

1. Documents pertaining to ownership of the house which are currently held by uncle
Yoweri, and his statement.
2. Evidence of instructions from the late father on use of the said land.
3. Whether the grandmother is still alive?
4. Photos of the houses/structures built on the land.
5. Photos of the coffee plantation.
6. Evidence of witnesses to prove threatening violence.
7. Spear as an exhibit for forensic examination (fingerprint exam).
8. The particular words used by Mapeera to threaten Truth.

Statement of Golden Batume (mother and Eyewitness)

1. Whether the other two children are also children of Girado Senki, those who were left in
use of the Land.
2. Evidence of instructions from the late father (documents etc.).
3. Whether she can identify the gang of people who came along with Chaga to incite
violence.

Advice to Police

● The Inspector of police should verify the dates in his statement.

● Send the file back to police for further inquiries on the above.
● Release suspect Mapeera Chaga on police bond on the above.

The Necessary Court Document to Initiate Criminal Proceedings.

What are the necessary court documents to initiate court proceedings?

 CHARGE SHEET

UGANDA POLICE

POLICE FORM 53
CID HEADQUARTERS
E/79/2024

7TH October, 2024

CHARGE

UGANDA VERSUS MAPEERA CHAGA M/A 43 YEARS MUNYOLE BY TRIBE BUSINESS

MAN, RESIDENT OF MADIRISA NANSANA MUNICIPALITY, WAKISO DISTRICT.

CT1. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Threatening violence c/s 77 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Mapeera Chaga on the 10th day of September 2024 at Wakiso district or thereabout threatened
to beat Truth Daliso.

CT2. STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Common assault c/s 218 of the Penal Code act cap 128

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE

Mapeera Chaga on the 10th day of September 2024 at Wakiso district or thereabout unlawfully
threw a spear at Truth Daliso with the intention of injuring her.

CT3. STATEMENT OF THE OFFENCE

Uttering false documents c/s 328 and 324 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128

PARTICULARS OF OFFENCE
Mapeera Chaga on the 10th day of September 2024 at Madirisa, Nansana, Wakiso district or
thereabout knowingly uttered a false written agreement purportedly by his father, Girado Senki,
giving him the land located at Madirisa, Nansana, Wakiso District, to the Deputy Inspector of
Police.

…………………………… …………………………………..
D/ASP NGANZI CHRISTINE SIGNATURE OF THE MAGISTRATE
OFFICER PREFERRING CHARGE

Task 3
Assume that you are an advocate in private practice with M/s Back on Track Advocates
and you have been instructed by the relatives of the suspect who has been detained at
Nansana Police Station since the 9th September 2024:

(a) Advise your client on the pre-trial remedies available to him, if any.

What pretrial remedies are available for the suspects detained?

There are various possible actions to take in securing the freedom of our client including first,
seeking for release on bond and if bond fails, then applying for unconditional release to the
Magistrates Court.

Police Bond

Bond refers to a release of a person who was arrested with or without a warrant upon such a
person availing sufficient sureties for his or her attendance before court at the specified time.

Under Section 17 (1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 122, an officer in charge of
a police station to which a person is brought is empowered to consider the nature of the offence
and if it is not an offence of a serious nature and it is not possible to produce the suspect before
court within 24 hours after being brought into custody to release the person upon executing a
bond with or without sureties for a reasonable amount to appear before a magistrate’s court at
the time and place named in the bond.

This is also reflected under Section 24(2) (b) of the Police Act Cap 324 to the effect that a
person who has been arrested as a preventive action can be released on execution of a bond
with or without surety where provision is made for his or her appearance before a senior police
officer at regular intervals if so required. It is important to note that, under Section 38 of the
Police Act, a police bond is free of charge, and no fees are imposed on it. Furthermore, the
bond does not require any sealing for it to be valid.

To apply for police bond, one simply needs to make a formal application by filling Police Form
18 which is then submitted to the Officer in Charge.

Article 23(4) of the Constitution mandates that a detained individual must be brought before
court within 48 hours of arrest. This requirement is reinforced by Section 25 of the Police Act
Cap 324, and Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap 122 which obligate the
police to release a person on bond if they are not arraigned before court within this timeframe.

In the event that our client is not released on bond through the application process detailed
above, we shall write an administrative complaint to the Chief State attorney, clearly stating the
condition of our client, the rights being violated by his continued stay in custody even when an
application for bond has been made, and therefore pray for instructions to have the police
compelled to release our client on bond.
Unconditional Release

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, provides for the right of personal liberty under
Article 23. Furthermore, Article 23(4) of the Constitution mandates that a detained individual
must be brought before court within 48 hours of arrest.

Section 15 of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, provides that any person who believes
that another person is being unreasonably detained, may apply to the High Court to secure such
a person’s unconditional release. Such application is made following the procedure outlined
under Rule 7(1) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Rights and Freedoms
(Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2019 by way of notice of motion supported by an affidavit.
(See Schedule (Rule 7(1)) ). Upon being satisfied that the detention is unreasonable, the High
Court may order the production and release of the detained person or impose suitable
obligations on the detention authority.

In this case, our client has been at Nansana Police station since September 9, 2024, a month in
detention, which is longer than the mandated 48-hour period without being arraigned before a
court for trial. This situation not only contravenes the established legal guidelines but also
infringes upon his constitutional rights. Consequently, our client is entitled to unconditional
release as the Police conduct further investigations.

(b)Draft the necessary court documents envisaged for this purpose.

As discussed above, to secure the release of Mapeera, we may apply for a police bond, write
an administrative complaint to the DPP or apply to the High Court for his unconditional
release. The necessary documents to fulfil the aforementioned processes are;

Release on Police Bond

➢ Police Form 18

Administrative Complaint to the DPP

➢ Ordinary Letter
➢ Filling electronic complaints form via the official website of the DPP (accessible via
https://dpp.go.ug/complaint/)

Unconditional Release

➢ Notice of Motion
➢ Affidavit in Support

(a) Police Form 18 To secure a police bond for our client.

UGANDA POLICE
 POLICE FORM 18

RELEASE ON BOND

(Section 17(3) Criminal Procedure Code Act Cap. 122)

……… MAPEERA CHAGA…………….…………………………………..................................

Being charged with offence of………………CRIMINAL TRESPASS…………………………...

O. B No…………044……………and after enquired to appear before the…CHIEF

MAGISTRATE………...at……NABWERU…...…………………………...

Do hereby bind myself to appear at……NANSANA POLICE STATION…………………………...

…………………....at…………2PM………………on the……14th…day of ……OCT…2024………

…………MAPEERA CHAGA……………

Signature

I hereby declare myself surety for the above named……MAPEERA CHAGA.

We hereby declare ourselves and each of us sureties

……………………………that he shall attend as above stated and in case of making any default
herein.

I hereby bind myself to forfeit to the Uganda government the sum of shillings Two Million.

We hereby bind ourselves

…SURETIES…………………………………………………………………………………….
Dated this………7th……………. day of…………OCT…………….2024

…RANK…………………... ……………NAME…………………

Executed before me

……………………………………….

Signature

Documents Applying for Unconditional Release

1. Notice of Motion
 THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT WAKISO

(CRIMINAL DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 0001 OF 2024

MAPEERA CHAGA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Brought under Articles 23 and 50(1) of the Constitution, Human Rights (Enforcement) Act,
Sections 5 and 15, and Rule 7(1) of the Judicature (Fundamental and Other Rights and
Freedoms (Enforcement Procedure Rules), 2019)

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the 14th day of October, 2024 at
9:00 O’clock in the fore/after noon or so soon thereafter as Counsel for the Applicant can be
heard for orders that;

1. A declaration that the applicant is being unreasonably detained.

2. An order doth issue against the Respondent and his agents to unconditionally release the
applicant from police custody.

3. An order that the Respondent pays the costs of this application.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the grounds upon which this application is based are contained
in the Affidavit of MAPEERA CHAGA, the applicant, but are briefly that: -

a) The Applicant was arrested on the 9 th day of September, 2024 for alleged criminal
trespass.

b) The Applicant has been detained at Nansana Police Station to date and has never been
arraigned before the Court to be charged with any offense.
c) The Applicant’s constitutional right to personal liberty is being violated.

d) In the interests of justice, the application ought to be allowed.

…………………………………

M/s BACK ON TRACK ADVOCATES

Advocate for the Applicant

Dated at……………this………………day of………………… 2024

GIVEN under my hand and the seal of this court this………...day of……….2024

_______________________________

REGISTRAR/MAGISTRATE

To: The Respondent or Advocate for the Respondent

DRAWN & FILED BY:

BACK ON TRACK ADVOCATES
1ST FLOOR, ROOM 2,
LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
LIRA-UGANDA

2.Affidavit in Support of Notice of Motion

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT WAKISO

 (CRIMINAL DIVISION)

MISCELLANEOUS CAUSE No. 0001 OF 2024

MAPEERA CHAGA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: APPLICANT

-VERSUS-

UGANDA::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTICE OF MOTION

I, MAPEERA CHAGA, a male adult of sound mind and a resident of Nansana, Wakiso District,
C/o M/s Back on Track Advocates, hereby make oath and state as follows:

1. That I am the Applicant in this matter and hence competent to make this affidavit.

2. On the 9th day of September, 2024, I was arrested by officers from Nansana Police Station
on allegations of criminal trespass, a fact well within my knowledge.

3. Since the said date of my arrest, I have been detained at Nansana Police Station without
being brought before any court of law to be formally charged with an offence.

4. That my continued detention is unreasonable and in violation of my constitutional right to

personal liberty as enshrined in Articles 23 of the Constitution of Uganda.

5. That I have not been informed of any justifiable reasons for my prolonged detention nor have
I been brought before a court of law within the stipulated 48-hour period.

6. That I verily believe that the conduct of the Respondent is unlawful, unconstitutional, and
amounts to an abuse of my fundamental rights to personal liberty, freedom from arbitrary
detention, and the right to a fair hearing.

7. That it is in the interest of justice that this Honourable Court issues an order for my immediate
and unconditional release from police custody.

8. That I swear this affidavit in support of my Notice of Motion seeking the enforcement of my
fundamental rights and for orders as prayed therein.
9. That whatever is stated herein is true to the best of my knowledge, belief, and understanding.

Sworn at………………… this……………...day of ………………...2024

By the said

MAPEERA CHAGA ………Mapeera Chaga………

Deponent

BEFORE ME:

______________________________________

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS.

DRAWN & FILED BY:

BACK ON TRACK ADVOCATES
1ST FLOOR, ROOM 2,
LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE,
LIRA-UGANDA

Complaint Letter to The Chief State Attorney.

BACK ON TRACK ADVOCATES

LAW DEVELOPMENT CENTRE
LIRA-UGANDA
 7th OCTOBER, 2024

TO: RESIDENT STATE ATTORNEY

NANSANA MUNICIPALITY
WAKISO DISTRICT

RE: BOND APPLICATION IN REFERENCE TO MAPEERA CHAGA (FILE No. 2023-4.

Pursuant to Article 120 (5) of the 1995 Constitution, we are writing to notify you of the continued
detention of our client, Mapeera Chaga at Nansana Police station. This notice provides updated
information relating to the issue, a month after our client was arrested.

FACTS
In view of criminal file No. 2023-4, generated at Nansana Police station in Wakiso District, I
present to you the following facts;

Mapeera Chaga, our client, was arrested on 9th September of 2024, for alleged criminal
trespass. He has been in police custody, at Nansana Police station, since then and has never
been arraigned before any court of law. I formally applied for his release by police, but still has
not been released to-date.

ISSUE
The continued detention of our client at Nansana police station beyond 48 Hours infringes on
his right to personal liberty enshrined in Article 23 of the 1995 constitution.

DISCUSSION
The powers of the DPP under Article 120 (5) of the Constitution grant the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP) the authority to exercise his or her powers with regard to the public interest,
the interest of the administration of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process.

The functions conferred on the Director of Public Prosecutions under clause (3)(a), (b) and (c)
of this Article 120 may, be exercised by him or her in person or by officers authorised by him
or her in accordance with general or specific instructions.

PRAYERS
In order to protect our clients right to personal liberty enshrined under Article 23 of the
Constitution, and the need to prevent abuse of legal processes, the Chief state attorney should
compel the police at Nansana to grant our client bond.

Yours Sincerely

………Back on track advocates……….

BACK ON TRACK ADVOCATES
P.O BOX, 06.
LDC, LIRA.

TASK 4

Assume that you are a Grade 1 Magistrate and the suspect has told the Police that he
accepts having committed the offence. He has been produced before you for an extra
judicial statement, demonstrate how you would ensure that his statement is properly
recorded.
 What is the appropriate procedure for recording an extra judicial statement?

The Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition defines an “Extrajudicial statement’’ is an utterance
made out of court which can be either oral or written including a confession, admission or other
statement against the interest of the maker.

Additionally, an extrajudicial statement is an utterance made out-of-court which can either be

written or oral including a confession, admission, or other statements against interest of the
maker. Guidelines for Magistrates to record an extrajudicial statement date back from the
Circular of the Chief Justice dated 2nd February, 1973

What is a confession?

The case of Swami VS King Emperor (1939) 1 ALL ER 396 defines a confession as a
statement made by an accused person in which he admits in terms, the offence charged against
him or at any rate admits in substance all the elements of the offence.

According to Section 23 of the Evidence Act Cap. 8 (1) No confession made by any person
while he or she is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against any such person
unless it is made in the immediate presence of—(a)a police officer of or above the rank of
assistant inspector; or (b) a magistrate, but no person shall be convicted of an offence
solely on the basis of a confession made under paragraph (b), unless the confession is
corroborated by other material evidence in support of the confession implicating that
person.

For purposes of our discussion, Sec 23(1) (b) of the Evidence Act, is the relevant law
applicable to resolve this question.

Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda as amended prohibits self-incrimination.

The procedure for recording confessions is found in the Evidence (Statement to Police
Officers) Rules and case law. The procedure for Magistrates is illustrated in the case of
Uganda V Doyi Wabwire Kyoyo (1976) HCB 213 where Justice Ssekandi laid down the
following procedure;

1. When an accused person is brought before a Magistrate, the Magistrate should ensure
that the Police or Prison Officer escorting the accused leaves the chambers.

2. The Magistrate should ask his Court clerk to sit in the chambers with him so as to guard
against unnecessary allegations and to also act as an interpreter where necessary.

3. The Magistrate should use court paper in recording any statement from the accused

4. The accused should be informed in the language they understand best, the charge
against him/ her if in fact he or she has been charged before. If he has not been charged
before, the Magistrate should inform him or her of the allegations brought by the police
 as clearly as possible so that the accused is in no doubt as to the nature of the charge
which he is likely to face and upon which the statement is likely to be adduced as
evidence at the trial.

5. Immediately upon being informed of the charge in the language they understand best,
the Magistrate should caution the accused in the following terms;
“You needn’t say anything unless you wish but whatever you do say will
be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence.”

6. The accused should then be informed that he has nothing to fear or hope for in making a
statement before a Magistrate.

7. If the accused voluntarily makes a statement, then this should be recorded in the
language used by the accused. In case the language used isn’t English, it should be
translated and both statements must be read back to the accused which should signify
his agreement with the contents by signing or putting a thumbprint.

8. The Magistrate should then countersign on both statements and date them.

According to the case of Njuguna & Ors Vs R (1954) 21 EACA 316, it was held that it is
inadvisable, if not improper, for a police officer who is conducting the investigation of the case to
charge and record the cautioned statement of the accused.

According to the case of Uganda Vs Kalema & Anor (1974) HCB 142, it was held that such a
section means that the accused should appear before an impartial person who knows nothing
about the background of the case. This means that courts have to be on their guard to see that
the purpose of the exercise is not defeated by back door practices.