KAMPALA – The High Court of Uganda in Jinja Monday, June 1, 2020, dismissed with costs an application filed by Jinja RDC Erick Sakwa seeking judicial review of his interdiction.
Mr. Sakwa ran to the High Court in Jinja challenging his dismissal from office after he was charged with three counts of manslaughter, theft, and malicious damage.
In an electronic ruling on Monday, June 1, Judge Jeanne Rwakakooko ruled that Sakwa though appointed by the President in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, is a Public Officer and bound by the Public Service Standing Orders.
“I agree with the submission of Counsel for the Respondents on this and find that the Applicant, though appointed by the President in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, is a Public Officer and bound by the Public Service Standing Orders,” the judge Rwakakooko ruled.
On whether the Haji Kakande Yunus, secretary to the Office of the President, had the mandate to interdict the Sakwa, the justice reasoned that Haji Kakande being the “Responsible Officer” in the President’s Office, had the legal capacity to interdict the Sakwa who is a “Public Officer”, stopping him from exercising his powers and performing the functions of the office of the Resident District Commissioner, JInja, until the Applicant is cleared of the charge of manslaughter against him.
“I am inclined to agree with Counsel for the Respondents that by virtue of Regulation 38 of the Public Service Commission Regulations, SI No. 1 of 2009, the 2nd Respondent, being the “Responsible Officer” in the President’s Office, had the legal capacity to interdict the Applicant who is a “Public Officer”, stopping him from exercising his powers and performing the functions of the office of the Resident District Commissioner, JInja, until the Applicant is cleared of the charge of manslaughter against him,” the judge ruled.
Sakwa in his application stated that he was never given any hearing before the interdiction letter was written and that all rules of natural justice were flouted.
But the judge noted that the decision to interdict is not subject to the right to be heard first since interdiction is but a first step towards disciplinary proceedings.
“Therefore, there was no need for the Applicant to be heard before he [Sakwa] was interdicted,” he ruled adding that Sakwa does not dispute the fact that he was arrested, charged, and remanded to prison for manslaughter.
“Further, in the Public Service Standing Orders, 2010, it clearly defines interdiction as “the temporary removal of a public officer from exercising the duties of his or her office while investigations over particular misconduct are being carried out.” These Public Service Standing Orders also show that it is not irrational to get a public officer temporarily removed from exercising his or her duties pending investigations,” the judge ruled.
“For reasons, I have given in the ruling, this application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents,” the judge ruled.
Sakwa was interdicted on May 4, 2020, but declined to vacate office on account that the interdiction was fake and had loopholes in its delivery. The interdiction came days after Sakwa was charged.
