By Sadique Bamwita
KAMPALA
The Ex- Minister for Karamoja Affairs, Mary Goretti Kitutu Kimono has lost an appeal after the Court of Appeal thrashed her attempt to stop two separate criminal prosecutions arising from the controversial management of the Karamoja supplementary programme.
A three-judge panel comprising Justices Moses Kazibwe Kawumi, Geoffrey Kiryabwire and Christopher Gashirabake, on September 17, 2026, unanimously dismissed Kitutu’s appeal, upholding the earlier decision of the High Court Anti-Corruption Division.
The appellate court found that Kitutu had failed to prove that the two criminal cases against her arose from the same transaction, amounted to an abuse of the prosecutorial process or violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The court consequently left the two prosecutions intact.
Kitutu filed an appeal in the appellant court seeking to have two criminal proceedings against her joined, arguing that they were essentially products of one investigation into the management of the Karamoja supplementary budget for the 2021/2022 financial year.
She also argued that subjecting her to parallel proceedings before different prosecuting authorities amounted to an abuse of process and exposed her to unnecessary expense and prejudice.
But the Court of Appeal rejected the argument, finding that the two cases concern different alleged criminal conducts, different sums of money, different periods, different co-accused persons and different evidential requirements.
The judges said the fact that the allegations emerged from the same broad government programme did not automatically make them one criminal transaction.
The first criminal case, brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions, concerns the alleged diversion of iron sheets procured for the Karamoja Community Empowerment Programme.
Kitutu was charged with two counts of causing loss of public property involving 9,000 and 5,500 pre-painted iron sheets, as well as conspiracy to defraud.
The case also involves other accused persons facing corruption and receiving stolen property charges.
The second prosecution was instituted by the Inspectorate of Government.
That case concerns alleged financial irregularities surrounding funds allocated for peace-building, disarmament, monitoring and administrative activities under the Karamoja Programme.
The charges include alleged financial loss involving Shs1.555 billion and corruption relating to Shs2.230 billion in funds meant for peace-building activities in Karamoja.
The Court of Appeal drew a firm line between the two cases.
It said the iron-sheet prosecution principally concerns procurement, diversion and receipt of iron sheets, while the IGG case concerns expenditure on peace-building activities, monitoring, administrative costs and related budgetary items.
“These distinctions are substantive rather than cosmetic,” the court held.
Kitutu’s case hinged heavily on the argument that the two prosecutions were connected because they originated from the same supplementary budget and wider investigations into Karamoja.
Court held that criminal charges are not joined simply because they arise from the same government programme or involve the same public officer.
The decisive question, according to the court, is whether the offences are founded on the same facts or form part of the same transaction or series of transactions.
The court concluded that the evidence before it established distinct factual transactions.
Kitutu had also relied heavily on the Kazinda v Attorney General case, arguing that it supported her contention that multiple prosecutions arising from connected official conduct could amount to an unconstitutional fragmentation of criminal proceedings. The Court of Appeal, however, distinguished her case from Kazinda.
According to the judgment, Kazinda involved repeated prosecutions founded upon substantially the same factual matrix.
Kitutu further argued that defending two criminal proceedings simultaneously was itself prejudicial and violated her constitutional right to a fair hearing.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with her argument and it held that merely facing more than one criminal proceeding does not establish a violation of Article 28 of the Constitution.
An accused person alleging infringement must demonstrate actual prejudice or show that the fairness of the criminal process has been substantially undermined.
The court also rejected complaints surrounding a summons and investigative measures, noting that Kitutu had not demonstrated that essential defence documents had been seized or withheld from her.
Nor had she shown that the investigations prevented her from accessing material necessary to prepare her defence.
The former minister had also complained about the additional expense of defending two cases.
But the appellate judges ruled that the financial and practical burden of defending separate lawful prosecutions cannot, by itself, turn those proceedings into a constitutional violation.
The court said constitutional remedies are available where a protected right has been established to have been violated—not simply because criminal litigation is burdensome.
In its final determination, the Court of Appeal found that the two criminal proceedings were founded upon distinct factual transactions involving different allegations, co-accused persons, evidential requirements and periods of alleged offending.
It further found that the DPP and IGG had acted within their respective constitutional mandates.
High Court Judgement Upheld
The High Court’s judgment and orders were upheld, while each party was ordered to bear their own costs of the appeal.
Justices Kiryabwire and Gashirabake subsequently confirmed that they agreed with Justice Kazibwe Kawumi’s judgment and orders, making the decision unanimous.
