Justice Lawrence Gidudu of the Anti-Corruption Division of the High Court has told defence lawyers to discuss the evidence of CCTV footage and audio recordings with their clients, the three legislators accused of asking for a 20% kickback from the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) boss, before cross-examining her about the same.
Justice Gidudu has today concurred with the defence team’s request for an adjournment, asking them to discuss the CCTV footage and audio with their clients before cross-examining Ms Mariam Wangadya, who had finished giving her testimony in chief against the three.
“I have only three months to conclude this case. If we find the time not sufficient, we may sit on some Saturdays, so you better prepare yourselves,” Justice Gidudu said before adjourning the case to August 14.
This came at a time when the prosecution had closed its examination in chief of Ms Wangadya, and after the court rejected the state’s request for the second time to play the audio she allegedly recorded during her meeting with the three legislators.
The three MPs accused of asking for a 20% kickback from the UHRC boss in order to enhance the commission’s budget are MP Paul Akamba (Busiki County, Namutumba), Yusuf Mutembuli (Bunyole East, Butaleja District), and Cissy Namujju Dionizza (District Woman Representative of Lwengo).
The court had earlier declined to play the audio recording on the ground that it needed a forensic expert or investigator; however, even today, the state made the same request, which the defence lawyers objected to, reasoning that this had been already settled in the earlier ruling.
Justice Gidudu agreed with the defence lawyers, reasoning that the integrity of the recording had not been established and required competent persons who handled it to testify.
“If the prosecution leads evidence establishing the authenticity and reliability of the electronic information, such evidence, if in sound format, can be played for the presenter to confirm to court if that is the data he or she mined, transferred, or stored, and after that stage, if the prosecution so desires, it can call or request the court to recall any witness to identify themselves and their participation in such conversation.” Justice Gidudu ruled.
