After 13 years on remand without trial, two Maracha men finally freed

The release of Jino Enzama and Angelo Adima after 13 years on remand without trial for murder in Uganda highlights a severe systemic failure within the country's criminal justice system. This case starkly illustrates the violation of fundamental constitutional rights, including the right to personal liberty (Article 23) and the right to a fair and speedy hearing (Article 28) of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Despite clear constitutional provisions for mandatory bail after specified remand periods, these individuals endured over a decade of detention, underscoring persistent challenges such as case backlog, institutional incapacity, and inadequate legal aid. Their eventual freedom, while a relief, serves as a critical reminder of the urgent need for robust judicial reforms and strict adherence to constitutional safeguards to prevent similar injustices.

The recent release of Jino Enzama and Angelo Adima from Domuru village, Maracha district, after an astonishing 13 years on remand without trial for murder, has cast a harsh spotlight on the persistent challenges plaguing Uganda's criminal justice system. Arrested in May 2013 following a mob killing, their prolonged detention represents a profound breach of fundamental human rights and constitutional guarantees. This case is not an isolated incident but rather a vivid illustration of systemic inefficiencies and a critical failure to uphold the principles of justice and due process.

This article delves into the legal framework governing pre-trial detention in Uganda, examining the constitutional and statutory provisions designed to protect accused persons from undue delay. It analyzes how the prolonged remand of Enzama and Adima contravened these safeguards and explores the underlying factors contributing to such egregious delays. Ultimately, the article aims to highlight the critical implications for legal practitioners and the broader justice sector, emphasizing the imperative for reform and diligent advocacy to ensure that the right to a fair and speedy trial is not merely a theoretical construct but a lived reality for all Ugandans.

The right to personal liberty and a fair hearing are cornerstones of Uganda's constitutional democracy, enshrined in Chapter Four of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Article 23 provides for the protection of personal liberty, stipulating conditions under which a person may be deprived of liberty and, crucially, outlining rights upon arrest and detention. Specifically, Article 23(6) addresses bail, stating that an arrested person is entitled to apply for bail and that courts may grant it on reasonable conditions. More pointedly, for offences triable by both the High Court and subordinate courts, a person remanded for 60 days before trial "shall be released on bail," and for offences triable only by the High Court, this mandatory release applies after 180 days on remand before committal to the High Court.

Complementing these provisions, Article 28 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, mandating a "fair, speedy and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law." This article also enshrines the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the right to be informed of charges, adequate time and facilities for defence, and legal representation. Significantly, Article 44(c) declares the right to a fair hearing as non-derogable, meaning it cannot be suspended even during a state of emergency. These constitutional provisions, alongside the Criminal Procedure Code Act and the Trial on Indictments Act, form the legal bulwark against arbitrary and prolonged detention, aiming to ensure timely justice and uphold human dignity.

The 13-year remand of Jino Enzama and Angelo Adima without trial represents a profound and undeniable breach of their fundamental rights under the Ugandan Constitution. Their detention far exceeded the mandatory bail periods stipulated in Article 23(6)(c) for capital offences, which mandates release after 180 days on remand before committal to the High Court. The failure to bring them to trial within a "reasonable time" directly contravened Article 28(1), which guarantees a speedy hearing, and undermined the presumption of innocence enshrined in Article 28(3)(a).

This case highlights systemic issues within Uganda's criminal justice system, particularly the pervasive problem of case backlog. Judiciary reports consistently indicate a significant number of pending cases, with criminal matters often forming the largest share. Factors contributing to this backlog include institutional under-capacity, staffing gaps, limited funding, and slow investigative processes. The absence of adequate legal representation for indigent accused persons further exacerbates the problem, as many detainees, unable to afford lawyers, remain in custody for extended periods without effective advocacy for their release or trial.

Ugandan jurisprudence has, on occasion, addressed the issue of prolonged detention. In the landmark case of *Attorney General v. Susan Kigula & 417 Others* (Constitutional Appeal No. 03 of 2006), the Supreme Court, while primarily dealing with the constitutionality of the death penalty, affirmed that prolonged detention on death row could constitute cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, thereby violating constitutional rights. Although the *Kigula* case concerned post-conviction delay, its principles regarding the right to timely justice and humane treatment are highly relevant to pre-trial detention. Similarly, in *Shabahuria Matia v Uganda*, the court recognized that undue delay in prosecution could amount to an abuse of court process, warranting a stay of criminal proceedings. The *Mivumbi Richard v Uganda* (Criminal Misc. Application No. 029 of 2025, Kabale High Court) ruling further reinforces the principle of mandatory bail, affirming that once the 180-day remand threshold for capital offences is met, bail becomes a constitutional entitlement.

The practical reality, however, often deviates from these legal pronouncements. The "loophole" identified by Avocats Sans Frontières in 2011, where the 180-day clock for capital offences effectively "stops ticking" once a person is committed for trial in the High Court, even if the trial does not commence for years, remains a significant concern. This procedural gap, coupled with the challenges of judicial bureaucracy, allows for situations like that of Enzama and Adima to persist, eroding public confidence in the justice system and inflicting immense suffering on those presumed innocent.

The case of Jino Enzama and Angelo Adima serves as a powerful and distressing testament to the ongoing crisis of prolonged pre-trial detention in Uganda. Their 13-year ordeal without trial is a stark reminder that constitutional guarantees, however robust on paper, are meaningless without effective implementation and a responsive justice system. This systemic failure not only violates individual rights but also undermines the rule of law and the very fabric of justice.

For legal practitioners, this case underscores the critical importance of vigilant advocacy. Attorneys must proactively monitor remand periods, robustly apply for mandatory bail under Article 23(6) of the Constitution, and be prepared to pursue constitutional remedies for rights violations arising from undue delay. Furthermore, continued engagement with civil society organizations and human rights bodies is essential to push for comprehensive judicial reforms, including increased funding for legal aid, enhanced judicial efficiency, and improved case management systems. While initiatives like plea bargaining and alternative dispute resolution are being rolled out to address backlog, sustained political will and institutional commitment are paramount to prevent future occurrences of such profound injustice. The freedom of Enzama and Adima is a small victory, but the fight for a truly fair and speedy justice system in Uganda continues.