BEFORE: HON. MR. JUSTICE V. A. R. RWAMISAZI-KAGABA
RULING
On the 25/9/2002, the prosecution called
PW8 - D/
AIP Kasangaki John. This witness testified on how he conducted an identification parade on the 28/7/1998 at Kampala Central Police Station. The accused in the present case, Richard
Arinaitwe, was one the nine volunteers who formed the parade.
The accused who had been represented by Mr. P.
Ayigihugu was in court and so was his counsel. At the close of his (witness) evidence - in chief, Mr.
Ayigihugu started cross-examining him. In the course of the said cross examination, counsel sought to cross-examine him on the contents of information which was supposed to be on Police Form 69 in another case of robbery but concerning the same accused.
The information in the document concerning that other case was not in court and was not in possession of the witness, the prosecuting counsel or the
defence counsel.
When the Judge asked counsel for the accused whether it was proper to cross examine a witness on the contents of a document which was not in his possession or which the
defence counsel did not avail to him before formulating questions based on its contents, the
defence counsel moved from his bench (without even seeking the permission of court) to the dock where the accused was positioned.
After counsel and his client had talked for a few minutes, I saw the accused raise his hand I asked him what he wanted to say. The accused then said the judge had been paraphrasing the questions put by his lawyer thereby obscuring the real sense of the questions. That this had led the accused to believe that justice was not being done. He then said he wanted to conduct his own
defence without a counsel.
Mr.
Ayigihugu, in response, said, as the accused had come to believe that the bench and the bar were working in collusion to effect injustice to the accused, and since the accused had on his own opted with discontinuing with his services, he (counsel) should be discharged from the case.
Mr.
Okwang, Counsel for the state told court that what the accused had said were words of Mr.
Ayigihugu who had avoided saying them himself but, instead, pushed his client to say them on his behalf. This could be seen from the time when the accused uttered them - that is after counsel and his client had consulted.
Mr.
Okwang said this was a veiled application whereby Mr.
Ayigihugu was accusing the Judge of being impartial. He insisted that Mr.
