Practice Relating to Rule 100. Fair Trial Guarantees
Section N. Non bis in idem
Uganda’s Defence Forces Act (2005) provides:
216. Autrefois acquit and autrefois convict
(1) A person, in respect to whom a charge of having committed a service offence has been dismissed, or who has been found guilty or not guilty by a military court or civil court on a charge of having committed any such offence, shall not be tried again by any court in respect of that offence or any other offence of which he or she might have been found guilty on that charge.
In 2003, in its initial report to the Human Rights Committee, Uganda stated:
410. The principle of non-retroactive jurisdiction is contained in Uganda’s domestic legislation. Under Article 28 (7) of the Constitution “No person shall be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence which is founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place constitute a criminal offence”. The constitution also in a related manner prohibits “double jeopardy”, Article 28 (9) states that “A person who shows that he or she has been tried by a competent court for criminal offence and convicted or acquitted of that offence, shall not again be tried for the offence or for any criminal offence of which he or she could have been convicted at the trial for that offence, except upon the order of superior court in the course of appeal or review proceedings relating to the conviction or acquittal”.
411. Furthermore, article 28(10) prohibits trying a person for a criminal offence in which he has previously been pardoned. It states “No person shall be tried for a criminal offence if the person shows that he or she has been pardoned in respect of that offence”. There has not been a case since 1986 where the principle of non-retroactive jurisdiction has been violated. Even if it was, it would have been challenged under the law and under the independent judiciary in the country.