Fiat justitia ruat caelum: Let Justice be done though the Heavens fall
1.ARRESTING OF PEOPLE WHO BUY FROM HAWKERS- (SECTION 16 TRADE LICENSING ACT CAP 101)
After chasing the hawkers off the street, KCCA embarked on yet another journey of arresting people who buy from Hawkers-this they chose to call it "abetting hawking." A number of people were arrested, spent more than 48hours in detention, appeared before the magistrate and found guilty Under Section 16(1).
Section 16(1) of the Act provides that "No person shall act as a hawker unless he or she is in possession
of a valid hawkers licence granted to him or her for that purpose by the licensing authority." Section 1 defines a hawker as; "means a person who, whether on his or her own account or as the servant of another person, sells goods by retail other than in trading premises or in a market established under the Markets Act." The reading of these two sections clearly spelt out that the subject matter in this legislation is the hawker and not the buyer. Unless there is any other law or Statutory instrument in which KCCA is charging buyers who buy from hawkers, This Section does not in any way criminalize any buyer who buys from a hawker rather a hawker who operates without license.
To sound unbiased, I visited the KCCA website to check for any Statutory Instrument to this effect but all in vain and I then wrote to KCCA asking them to provide the law( OTHER THAN THE TRADE LICENSING ACT) in which they are arresting the buyers on Kampala streets but all in vain.
As if that is not enough, criminal proceedings ensued hinging on the same provision of the law and apparently all the suspects were sentenced to community service.
If KCCA is solely relying on Section 16(1) of this Act to arrest buyers , then all its operations are illegal and irregular, including the court process and thus this must stop with immediate effect!
2. ARRESTING THE PIG-DEMO DUO
The pig Demo- the duo were arrested and charged under section 18(f) of the Parliament(powers and privileges )Act Cap 258 and common nuisance under section 160 of the Penal Code Act cap 120.
Section 18(f) of cap 258 provides that; "Any person who creates or joins in any disturbance which interrupts or is likely to interrupt the proceedings of Parliament or a committee while Parliament or the committee is sitting commits an offence and is liable on conviction before a court to a fine not exceeding four thousand shillings or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment."
The key words in this section are; CREATE OR JOIN IN ANY DISTURBANCE, WHICH INTERRUPTS OR LIKELY TO INTERRUPT PROCEEDINGS.
I pose the following questions
-Was there any plenary of Parliament going on?
-Was there any one disturbed or interrupted during the Parliamentary session?
-Did the Demonstration stop any proceedings in Parliament or committees?
OR-
-What is the likelihood that the 2 innocent piglets (outside Parliament)were likely to interrupt a sitting in Parliament?
Once you can answer those questions in the affirmative, you can go ahead and prosecute but short of that, this doesn't qualify!
3. The Duo too was charged with Common nuisance, a charge becoming commonly used by the Police officers in this regime under Section 160 of the Penal Code Act
Section 160 provides that; "Any person who does an act not authorised by law or omits to discharge a legal duty and thereby causes any common injury, or danger or annoyance, or obstructs or causes inconvenience to the public in the exercise of common rights, commits the misdemeanour termed a common nuisance and is liable to imprisonment for one year"
My questions are as follows:
-Was there any injury caused?
-Who was annoyed?
-Who was obstructed?
-Who was inconvenienced?
-And how were they inconvenienced?
-Who are the complainants?
The above questions should be answered against the fact that the two piglets were joyfully laying down and enjoying the air in the Parliament Parking.
If the above questions can be answered in the affirmative with evidence, then go ahead and prosecute but at all times, No man should be guilty of non-existing offense and everyman MUST BE HEARD; Audi alteram partem
Fiat justitia ruat caelum!
Michael Aboneka Jr
After chasing the hawkers off the street, KCCA embarked on yet another journey of arresting people who buy from Hawkers-this they chose to call it "abetting hawking." A number of people were arrested, spent more than 48hours in detention, appeared before the magistrate and found guilty Under Section 16(1).
Section 16(1) of the Act provides that "No person shall act as a hawker unless he or she is in possession
of a valid hawkers licence granted to him or her for that purpose by the licensing authority." Section 1 defines a hawker as; "means a person who, whether on his or her own account or as the servant of another person, sells goods by retail other than in trading premises or in a market established under the Markets Act." The reading of these two sections clearly spelt out that the subject matter in this legislation is the hawker and not the buyer. Unless there is any other law or Statutory instrument in which KCCA is charging buyers who buy from hawkers, This Section does not in any way criminalize any buyer who buys from a hawker rather a hawker who operates without license.
To sound unbiased, I visited the KCCA website to check for any Statutory Instrument to this effect but all in vain and I then wrote to KCCA asking them to provide the law( OTHER THAN THE TRADE LICENSING ACT) in which they are arresting the buyers on Kampala streets but all in vain.
As if that is not enough, criminal proceedings ensued hinging on the same provision of the law and apparently all the suspects were sentenced to community service.
If KCCA is solely relying on Section 16(1) of this Act to arrest buyers , then all its operations are illegal and irregular, including the court process and thus this must stop with immediate effect!
2. ARRESTING THE PIG-DEMO DUO
The pig Demo- the duo were arrested and charged under section 18(f) of the Parliament(powers and privileges )Act Cap 258 and common nuisance under section 160 of the Penal Code Act cap 120.
Section 18(f) of cap 258 provides that; "Any person who creates or joins in any disturbance which interrupts or is likely to interrupt the proceedings of Parliament or a committee while Parliament or the committee is sitting commits an offence and is liable on conviction before a court to a fine not exceeding four thousand shillings or to imprisonment for any term not exceeding two years or to both such fine and imprisonment."
The key words in this section are; CREATE OR JOIN IN ANY DISTURBANCE, WHICH INTERRUPTS OR LIKELY TO INTERRUPT PROCEEDINGS.
I pose the following questions
-Was there any plenary of Parliament going on?
-Was there any one disturbed or interrupted during the Parliamentary session?
-Did the Demonstration stop any proceedings in Parliament or committees?
OR-
-What is the likelihood that the 2 innocent piglets (outside Parliament)were likely to interrupt a sitting in Parliament?
Once you can answer those questions in the affirmative, you can go ahead and prosecute but short of that, this doesn't qualify!
3. The Duo too was charged with Common nuisance, a charge becoming commonly used by the Police officers in this regime under Section 160 of the Penal Code Act
Section 160 provides that; "Any person who does an act not authorised by law or omits to discharge a legal duty and thereby causes any common injury, or danger or annoyance, or obstructs or causes inconvenience to the public in the exercise of common rights, commits the misdemeanour termed a common nuisance and is liable to imprisonment for one year"
My questions are as follows:
-Was there any injury caused?
-Who was annoyed?
-Who was obstructed?
-Who was inconvenienced?
-And how were they inconvenienced?
-Who are the complainants?
The above questions should be answered against the fact that the two piglets were joyfully laying down and enjoying the air in the Parliament Parking.
If the above questions can be answered in the affirmative with evidence, then go ahead and prosecute but at all times, No man should be guilty of non-existing offense and everyman MUST BE HEARD; Audi alteram partem
Fiat justitia ruat caelum!
Michael Aboneka Jr
Comments
Post a Comment