How socialite Bad black and Meddie Ssentongo lost case Brief facts Shanita Namuyimbwa[badblack], 21, is charged with embezzling Shs11bn from Davishan Development Company,which she co-owned with her 53-year-old British lover, David Greenhalgh. Namuyimbwa and co- accused Meddie Ssentongo jointly face two counts of conspiracy to defraud the company of $9bn and $1.77bn respectively. The two pleaded not guilty to the charges in the Anti-Corruption Court. At its initial stages every one thought Bad black was innocent,the pressing wrapping up the assessors opinions and the fictious story told by badblaack that one David the plaintiff was a liar ,that the company he claims to exist has never been and that Davishan development company was a sham and the bank account in the aforesaid names was a love account for the two and Davi stood for David the plaintiff and shan stood for shanita[bad black]. Every one nearly believed the story but now trouble came in the second session where the prosecution was advised to prove all the charges against bad black and meddie sentongo beyond reasonable doubt as it is required at law in criminal cases and the prosecution went ahead On Count No. 1 is the offence of embezzlement c/s 19(b). The relevant law provides as follows: In order to prove the offence of embezzlement as charged, the prosecution is required to prove the following ingredients beyond reasonable doubt. 1. That the person is a director, officer or employee of a company or corporation. 2. That the person steals a chattel, money or valuable security. 3. That the person receives or takes into his possession by himself such chattel, money or valuable property on account of his employment However before court went into the ingredients of the offence ,it addresed the contentious issue of whether Davishan Developmaent company existed and was proved David was possesion of a certificate of incorporation to which according to s.16 of the companies is conclusive proof that a company exists and this can't be challenged in either way though most of the other hitherto documents like the memo and articles of asssociation had irrregularities but this couldn't legally help. Now the issue was wether badblack was a director in the company,the issue was held in affirmative and it was held the regardless of the express appointment badlack was the director of the company as this was to be implied from her participation in its registration and that David too was a share holder as his lawyer was acting on his behalf in the registration process,on wether money or chattel was stolen ,this seemed obvious as bad black testified withdrawing moneI from the company acccount yet David hsd opened ip for her a personal account so her claims of love account simanya remained toothless and on the third ingredient it was also clear that shanita accessed the funds by virtue of her being a director and what used the money for wasn't inline with the company objectives. So the offence of embezzlement was proved On count 2 of conspiracy to defraud contrary to s.309 of the penal code . Shanita and Meddie are jointly indicted for conspiracy to defraud. To secure a conviction for conspiracy, the prosecution must prove that there were two or more persons involved. There cannot be conspiracy without the involvement of at least two people. It must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt that these persons agreed to pursue a course of conduct with intent to perform an unlawful thing, even if that unlawful purpose is impossible to achieve .In this case the meddie held out to be a manager of the company and he indeed contacted some engineer and informed him on to work out the costs of a hotel project and also to draft all the necessary plans infact this was aimed at making David belief that business waI moving on so that he can send more more though he didn't send it this was immaterial. more so badblack on opening up the bank account he was in company with meddie,,lastly all evidence of money withdraws pointed out that whenever David could send money on the company account the very sum would be withdrawn and deposited on meddie's account and this could never have been a coincidence.

A critical analysis of the Attorney General's decision to ban A4c and its grave impact on to the citizens due on its enforcement

Last week on April 4 , the Attorney General (AG) of Uganda issued a statutory instrume- nt banning apolitical group, Activists for Change(A4C).
The A4C is a pressure groupthat came to prominence in April2011.The A4C organi- sed various protests in Uganda mainly in response to econom- ic hardships and what A4C called waste by the Uganda government.
For the biggest part of 2011, A4C organiz- ed protests mainly Walk to Work and Hooting inter alia

Though the activists claim theirs to be peaceful protests, the protests often end in confrontation with the Uganda Police/Army with causalities on both sides and Where ar the state has given less prominence to those killed in various protests including the 3 year old Abigail Nalwanga shot by police during similar protests more attention has been given to the death of a police
officer AIP Ariong killed in March during similar confrontations. Reaction to AIP Ariong’s death was
mixed, with people on both sides of the political divide seeking to capitalize on the death. First was the opposition who claimed that Ariong was shot by a fellow policeman/woman and an independent inquiry be done.Government refused these demands,went ahead to burry Ariong without satisfying curious Ugandans who believe the theory raised by the opposition.The government then moved to capitalize on Ariong’s death,first by the Assistant Inspector of Police (AIGP) claiming that the battle line has been drawn (presumably between Ugandans and the Uganda police) and a call for revenge in the force.This was followed by statements by the president and other big wigs in the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) on how government will be high handed in its handling protests. The banning of the A4C by the AG is part of the legal and none legal methods government intends to apply to control dissenting views.This comes at the expense of constitutional and other legal guarantees in Uganda. The AG evoked powers granted to himby S. 56(1) and (2)(c) of the PenalCode Act cap 120 (PCA).
Before I get into the legalities of the AG’s action, let me give a brief background of the PCA. The present PCA was adopted on 15 June 1950. This was part of the various colonial laws introduced to
control uprisings in Uganda after it had been used in India in the 1920s.The main focus of the PCA (specifically part VIII) was to control uprisings by Africans demanding for self rule. At the time it was introduced Uganda had several uprisings for independence.
The colonial government used the criminal law regimes to control dissent such as control of the Busuulu and Envojjo revolts in 1930s and the arrest and charging of those who took part in the economic boycotts of 1950s and the subsequent deportation of the King of Buganda in 1950. It should be noted that the legal and military regime used to control discontent resulted in more motivated leaders who formed the first political parties in Uganda and increased demand for self rule. The post colonial governments kept this part of the PCA to control discontent as was seen during Obote and Amini regimes that used it to ban all forms of political and other associations including trade unions.
Over 30 years since it was last used the AG resurrects the dreaded part VIII of the PCA to ban the A4C. The actions by the AG have grave consequences not only to members of A4C but the general populace who may relate with members of A4C for any reason.

S. 59 of the PCA defines a society as a group of two or more persons, whether known by name or
not.
S. 59(2) gives conditions for which such a society can be banned, however S. 59(2)(c) gives the AG
powers to declare a society unlawful without giving any reason.
The Ban by the AG means A4C and its members shall not associate with anyone anywhere in Uganda. Since A4C is not a registered organization or has formal structures, government may have to target individuals suspected to be belonging to A4C. The danger with this is any person that police deems to be a member of A4C will be prohibited from associating with any person (possibly including family members and friends) and may be arrested and charged for being a member of an unlawful society.

Under S. 58 of the PCA a person who allows a meeting with a member of a group banned by AG commits an offence. This means hotels, owners of public places; landlords etc are under obligation to ensure suspected A4C members do not meet in their premises. This effectively extends the ban to other persons who have nothing to do with A4C and promotes mob hunting and discrimination of suspected A4C members in an attempt to isolate them. Related to the above is a provision in
S.58 which is to the effect that; 58(c) Any person who utters any speech or prints,publishes, sells, offers or exposes for sale or distributes any publication as defined by section 33, which, in the opinion of the court is likely or calculated to encourage the support of an unlawful society, The above provision read with S. 33, means a member of the press or any person who covers, interviews, hosts, publishes, sells/distributes a newspaper with any kind of information on A4C can be held criminally liable. Generally the order by the AG affect the freedoms of speech, expression, assembly, press, thought, conscience and belief, freedom to assemble and to demonstrate together with others peacefully, the right to move freely in Uganda all guaranteed under article 29 of the Uganda Constitution.
The declaration also affects article 38(2) which provides for a right to participate in peaceful activities to influence the policies of government through civic organisations and article 21 which protects against any form of discrimination.
Article 274 of the Uganda Constitution provides that laws were in existance before the coming into force of the 1995 constitution shall be construed with such modifications, adaptations, qualifications and exceptions as may be necessary to bring it into conformity with the Constitution. In the same spirit Article 2 of the same constitution provides that the constitution is a supreme law and if any law is inconsistent with the constitution, the law is null and void to the level of its inconsistency. The constitutional court has over the years discussed the two principles and ruled several laws including sections of the PCA as unconstitutional. What the AG should have done is to propose amending and repeal the PCA instead of using them against Ugandans. This should save the country unnecessary resources to be spent in constitutional court petitions that will end with a declaration. In the face of the alleged threats by the A4C on peace and security in the country, the state has the obligation to arrest and prosecute all those suspected of violating public peace in line with existing laws. The police should investigate and arrest all those responsible for crimes related to demonstrations. This should be done not in revenge for what every reason but judiciarily. The state machinery should also prosecute those who committee the offences without discrimination of selection. This will remove the need for declaring particular individuals or organizations as illegal persons.