The High court has ruled that the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI), now renamed Defense Intelligence and Security (DIS), is not a lawful detention facility.
Justice Richard Wejuli Wabwire of the International Crimes Division (ICD) determined that detaining suspects at CMI is illegal, as it is not an authorized detention center under the law.
The ruling was made in response to an application by six suspects accused of terrorist financing and belonging or professing to belong to a terrorist organization. The applicants: Musa Walusimbi, Isma Kyeyune, Isma Mubiru, Musa Kabanda, Ali Mwebe Muhammad, and Umaru Kabonge Ajobe alleged that they were illegally detained for longer than the legally stipulated period and subjected to inhumane treatment.
They claimed to have suffered physical and mental abuse, including being denied information about their arrest, being handcuffed from behind, beaten, kicked, and forced to witness a man being beaten to death.
They further alleged that they were denied food, tied to an electric pole under the scorching sun for over eight hours, stripped naked in front of others, submerged in freezing water, interrogated for prolonged periods in a dark room, and forced to eat pork despite being Muslims.
Additionally, they claimed to have had metal thorns tied between their fingers and were placed in rooms filled with foul-smelling water. Kabanda specifically testified that security agents threatened to kill his wife and harm his baby, while Kyeyune claimed he was shot in the elbow by security personnel.
The suspects stated that many of these abuses occurred while they were detained at CMI.
The Attorney General, representing the government, denied these allegations while the Inspector of Police Benedict Odyek, the investigative officer, swore an affidavit asserting that the suspects were never tortured.
The government also presented medical reports indicating that the suspects were in good physical and mental health. However, the Attorney General did not dispute that the suspects had been held at CMI.
Court ruling
Justice Wabwire found that the suspects’ right to be detained in a lawful facility and presented in court within 48 hours had been violated.
“Whereas the affidavit in reply states that the applicants were detained at Kireka police detention facility, it is not denied that they were also detained at the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI) facility in Mbuya. Since this fact remains unchallenged, the court finds that their detention at CMI, a facility unauthorized by law, contravened Article 23(2) of the Constitution,” the judge ruled.
The court also determined that the suspects were not informed of the reasons for their arrest, nor were they granted access to legal counsel, their families, or medical care—violating Article 23(5) of the Constitution.
“The denial of these fundamental safeguards undermines the rule of law and the protections accorded to all persons under the Constitution. Detaining a person without access to legal representation, family, or medical care not only exacerbates the trauma of arrest but also facilitates the risk of abuse, including torture and inhumane treatment. Such actions are reprehensible and must be unequivocally condemned,” the judge stated.
Additionally, the court found that the government violated the suspects’ right to be brought before a court within 48 hours. The suspects had been detained for periods ranging from three to eight months before being formally charged at Buganda Road court.
For these violations, the court awarded each suspect Shs 10 million and ordered the government to cover half of the legal costs. However, the judge dismissed claims that the suspects had been tortured or denied a fair hearing.
“The respondent’s unrebutted medical records indicate that the applicants were never tortured and were in good mental and physical condition,” Justice Wabwire ruled.
Regarding Kyeyune’s claim that he had been shot, the court found conflicting evidence. An affidavit from his wife, Proscovia Arach, stated that he was shot while resisting arrest. The judge noted that the law permits reasonable force to subdue a violent suspect resisting arrest.
“The application of force, resulting in a gunshot wound to the elbow, though serious, appears to have been targeted to neutralize the resistance rather than to inflict unnecessary harm. As such, it meets the threshold of proportionality in the context of arrest enforcement. Where the use of force is reasonable, necessary, and not excessive, it does not amount to torture. I therefore find that the shooting cannot be deemed torture under the law,” the judge concluded.
