By CHIMPREPORTS
By Jane Naigaga
In a truly novel development, the ODPP broke its own rules against the sub judice rule and issued a statement apprising the public on its supposed success in a high court application challenging the jurisdiction of the chief magistrate’s court to hear the bail applications of Molly Katanga’s co accused.
The DPP refused to add that the co-accused found themselves taking plea before the Chief Magistrate at the DPP’s own request.
The application to challenge the Chief Magistrate Court’s jurisdiction was just another of the curious doings of the DPP in this case.
The true motive behind the application was to frustrate the co-accused’s bail applications and because it was all so obvious, the defence team conceded to the application.
Ordinarily this would have closed the matter but in a twist of events, the DPP who had filed the application objected to the concession and insisted on being heard and on filing written submissions – again to buy time and frustrate the bail applications.
It is therefore astonishing that following the very obvious outcome of the ruling, the DPP issued a press statement tailor-made to misguide the public on the true content of the application and ruling.
PR campaign
It would appear that having completely bungled this case, the DPP now wishes to distract the public through the launch of a PR campaign.
The ODPP forgets that in discharging its duties as enshrined under the constitution, the interest of the administration of justice and the need to prevent abuse of legal process takes precedence over social media likes.
The ODPP must not diminish the repute of this office by engaging in such theatrics.
The law is based upon reason and not emotions. The law is prose, not poetry.
If the ODPP must issue statements to endear itself to the public, perhaps a statement explaining this office’s inexplicable disregard to the facts surrounding the injuries sustained by Molly Katanga and how they play into the murder charge against her; should be made.
Perhaps the DPP hoped that the statement on the high court application would distract the public from the miserable images of Molly Katanga being wheeled into court to be charged and the questions that all people of good conscience would like to be answered.
How did Molly Katanga come to be injured thus? Who injured her and what has the police and DPP done about it?
Why have the police and DPP been so unrelenting in their pursuit of Molly Katanga; yet so unperturbed by her injuries?
Why was it necessary to issue an arrest warrant for a woman who was in the hospital receiving treatment?
A woman who was already under arrest in her hospital bed with no freedom of movement and under police guard.
A woman who was evidently the victim of a very violent attack; an attack related to the murder charge against her. Misogyny is truly alive and well in the Ugandan justice system.
Patriarchy
There is no doubt that Uganda as a society is patriarchal. The resultant effect of a patriarchal society is that the oppression of women becomes a part of the immoral fiber of each and every aspect of the social order and the justice system is not spared.
The patriarchy is misogynist and it is served by men and captive women who can see a woman beaten to within an inch of her life and still charge her with murder at the first instance without hearing her side of the story and while investigations are ongoing
In this social order, a new mother will be charged and remanded, with no evidence as to her crime (because investigations are still ongoing) and yet no regard is paid to the welfare of her one-month-old child or her own mental health. What is imperative, is that a man died and come hell or waters high, jail time must be served.
You see, the man’s extended relatives and the public at large is outraged that he is dead. And this woman along with her daughters must have done it. And the entire justice system which has drunk from the fountain of the patriarchy must ensure that these women are duly punished.
It does not matter that the deceased nearly bludgeoned the main suspect to death. That fact is glossed over, the injuries are ignored and this victim is lifted from a hospital to be charged and bundled into an ambulance and delivered to a jail cell so that the public anger may be assuaged.
Uganda’s justice system is littered with horrifying examples of miscarriages of justice inspired by the highly misogynist ideals that define Uganda as a society.
But Katanga’s case will go down in history as particularly shameful because even the DPP’s own charge sheet, try as it might; could not disguise the fact that Molly Katanga was savagely bludgeoned by the deceased. It described her injuries as grievous harm.
Grievous harm
Under the Penal Code Act, “grievous harm” means any harm which amounts to a maim or dangerous harm, or seriously or permanently injures health or which is likely so to injure health, or which extends to permanent disfigurement, or to any permanent or serious injury to any external or internal organ, membrane or sense.
This case is disgraceful and has exposed the DPP’s office as lacking in moral courage and I shudder to think what happens in cases that do not get the sort of media coverage that the Katanga case has attracted.
The fervour with which the DPP has pursued Molly Katanga crossed all the lines of professionalism and decency and veered into a disturbing course of what looks like a personal vendetta.
It is a sad day for justice when an office such as that of the DPP acts without reason and descends into a realm that leads to the arrest of a woman who was (in the DPP’s own words) grievously harmed.
There are no inquiries into the grievous harm, how did she become grievously harmed, who grievously harmed her and would the grievous harm have any effect on the charges against her in law?
Why have her injuries; the open scalp, the broken hands, the failing organs, amputated digits not been investigated or questioned.
Why do they play no role in the DPP’s understanding of the ingredients of murder? To our justice system and to the DPP, this woman’s beating and injuries were part of the normal wear and tear of a marriage.
The underlying message that comes from the system’s treatment of women who are the victims of gender-based violence is that it is not important. Men who defile little girls are more deserving of society’s empathy than a battered woman and more deserving of empathy than the incarcerated mother of a one-month-old child.
It is upon such a setting, that poor Molly Katanga hopes to find justice, for herself and her girls and the two young men who got caught up in the crossfire of the patriarchy hell bent on punishing an errant woman who refused to die silently.
The author is a concern senior citizen and human rights activist
Discussion about this post