The Director of Public Prosecution’s power to delegate prosecutorial functions in Uganda: Understanding Article 120(4)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda (1995)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.67101/alamir.v7i01.292Keywords:
Director of Public Prosecutions, Uganda, Article 120 of the Constitution, Delegated prosecutions, private prosecutionsAbstract
Article 120(3) of the Constitution of Uganda provides for the functions of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Article 120(4) states that most of the functions under Article 120(3) may “be exercised by him or her [DPP] in person or by officers authorised by him or her in accordance with general or specified instructions.” Article 120(4) does not define “officers.” The drafting history of Article 120(4) shows that it was adopted without debate. Thus, the meaning of “officer” was not discussed. It is argued that “officer” under Article 120(4) should be interpreted to mean public prosecutors in the DPP’s office and prosecutors to whom the DPP has delegated powers although they are not employed in the DPP’s office. From an interdisciplinary perspective, this ensures that the administrative powers of the DPP, which are governed by administrative law, are not used to appoint people who do not qualify to be appointed and the right of the accused to a fair trial, which is governed by human right law, is strengthened since public prosecutors are more likely to be independent. The interdisciplinary perspective of the article is also reflected in the discussion of the differences between private prosecutions and public prosecutions. The author demonstrates the several approaches that Parliament has followed to give effect to Article 120(4). In many cases, legislation does not require the DPP to delegate public officers as prosecutors. Legislation “designates” them as prosecutors. In those instances, such officers are public prosecutors and must follow policies akin to those developed by the DPP. It is also argued that the DPP can only delegate prosecutorial powers to officers in institutions that are empowered by their establishing legislation to prosecute.
Views & Downloads Stats:
References
In this article, the phrase ―public prosecutor‖ is used in its broad sense to mean prosecutors who
prosecute on behalf of the government or a government entity/institution. For the discussion of the
distinction between public prosecutors and state prosecutors, see David Baxter Bakibinga ―The role of
prosecutors in preventing torture and ill-treatment of accused persons and proposals for reform‖(2018)
(1) Revista Acadêmica Escola Superior Do Ministério Público Do Ceará 217–235.
to
The Office of the DPP defines a ―prosecutor‖ to mean ‗the DPP, and any person exercising delegated
powers of the DPP under Article 120(4)(a) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.‘ See
Decisions
Charge
Guidelines
(2024)
Available
at
content/uploads/2024/03/THE-DECISION-TO-CHARGE-GUIDELINES.pdf (accessed 22 December
.
In 2022/2023, the Uganda Revenue Authority prosecuted 45 cases. See the Annual Revenue
Performance
Report
for
Financial
Year
/2023
(2023)
Available
at
https://ura.go.ug/en/download/annual-revenue-report-fy2022
/?wpdmdl=10067&refresh=694850bfcde321766346943 (accessed 23 December 2025). Although the
Uganda Revenue Authority prosecuted a few cases, it has a very high conviction rate, see Sofie Arjon
Schutte,
'Specialised
anti-corruption
courts:
Uganda'
(2016).
Available
at
The Director of Public Prosecution‘s power to delegate prosecutorial functions in Uganda (33)
https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/5887-specialised-anti-corruption-courts-uganda.pdf (accessed 23
December 2025).
It was reported that in 2023/2024, the Uganda National Bureau of Standards ‗successfully‘ prosecuted
ten cases. See Annual Report of the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (2023/2024) 42. Available at
https://unbs.go.ug//attachments/menus/34/UNBS%20Annual%20Report%20FY%202023-2024.pdf
In its 2022/2023 Annual Report, the Uganda Wildlife Authority reported that ―Both the investigations
and prosecution teams across the country handled several wildlife crime-related cases with 1219 cases
and 1930 suspects successfully investigated. Prosecution efforts recorded a total of 642 cases prosecuted
in courts of law by the end of the year with 307 cases with convictions representing 48% successful
prosecutions, 38 cases dismissed/acquitted while 297 were still ongoing.‖ See Annual Report of the
Uganda Wildlife Authority (July 2022 – July 2023) at 16. Available at https://ugandawildlife.org/wp
content/uploads/2024/05/UWA-annual-report-2022-2023-1.pdf (accessed 19 December 2025). For the
discussion of the prosecution of wildlife crimes, see Fredrick Bamwine, ―The Efficacy of Prosecuting
Wildlife Crimes in Uganda‖ (2019) 49(2/3) Environmental Policy and Law 181. In Caroline Naggoli v
Uganda (Criminal Application No 72 of 2025) [2026] UGHCACD 1 (26 January 2026), the High Court
held that the Uganda Revenue Authority has the power to prosecute.
Lindsey Carson, 'Institutional specialisation in the battle against corruption: Uganda‘s Anti-Corruption
Court' (2015) 3(1) The Public Sphere Journal 13 – 25.
Although the Uganda Communications Act, Act 1 of 2013 does not empower the Uganda
Communications Commission to prosecute, the DPP authorizes officers from the Uganda
Communications Commission to prosecute offences under the Act.
Although the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act, Chapter 205, does not empower
the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority to prosecute any of the offences under
the Act, in August 2025, the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Authority issued a
statement informing the public that the DPP has authorised it to prosecute offences under the section 129
of the Public Procurement and Disposal of Public Assets Act. See Benson Turamye, 'PPDA Moves to
Prosecute Offences Under the PPDA Act' 26 August 2025. Available at https://www.ppda.go.ug/ppda
moves-to-prosecute-offences-under-the-ppda-act/ (accessed 22 December 2025).
Anything done ultra vires must be set aside. It has no legal consequences. See for example, Sekiboobo
v Obonyo (Civil Application 31 of 1993) [1994] UGSC 35 (12 July 1994); Omunyoko Akol Johnson v
Attorney General (Civil Appeal No 06 of 2012) [2015] UGSC 129 (8 April 2015); Attorney General v
Ssemwogerere and Olum (Constitutional Appeal 3 of 2004) [2005] UGSC 29 (7 July 2005).
For a discussion of the roles of prosecutors in Uganda, see for example, David Baxter Bakibinga ―The
role of prosecutors in preventing torture and ill-treatment of accused persons and proposals for
reform‖(2018) 10(1) Revista Acadêmica Escola Superior Do Ministério Público Do Ceará 217–235.
Report of the Uganda Constitutional Commission: Analysis and Recommendations (1993) 17.170.
Ibid, para 17.178(d). These were ―(i) to institute criminal proceedings against any person or authority
in any court with competent jurisdiction other than a military court; (ii) to take over and continue any
criminal proceedings instituted by any other person or authority; (d) with the permission of the court, to
discontinue at any stage before judgement is delivered, any such criminal proceedings instituted by the
DPP or by any other person or authority.‖
Ibid, para 17. 178(e). see also para 220(e).
Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly (1994/1995) at 3412.
Ibid, at 3407 – 3408 (Mr Apuuli, Mr Musumba, Mr Mayanja, Mr Karuhanga)
Ibid, at 3407 (Mr Musumba).
Ibid, at 3407.
Magistrates Courts Act, Chapter 19, 1971.
Magistrates Courts Act, Chapter 19, 1971.
Section 41(1)(a).
Section 41(1)(b).
Al-Amīr - Volume: 07 Issue No. 01 January-June 2026
(34)
Section 43 provides that ―(1) Where criminal proceedings have been instituted by a person, other than
a public prosecutor or a police officer under section 42, the Director of Public Prosecutions may— (a)
take over and continue the conduct of those proceedings at any stage before the conclusion of the
proceedings; (b) discontinue the prosecution of the proceedings at any stage of an inquiry or a trial before
a magistrate‘s court; and (c) require such person, in relation to those proceedings— (i) to give him or her
all reasonable information and assistance; and (ii) to furnish him or her with any documents or other
matters and things in the person‘s possession or under his or her control.
(2) Where the prosecution of any proceedings has been discontinued under subsection (1)(b), section 121
shall apply as if there had been a withdrawal from the prosecution under that section.
(3) For the purposes of this section, ―criminal proceedings‖ means proceedings before a magistrate‘s
court and before any court by which an appeal may be heard or a power of revision exercised, and
criminal proceedings shall not be deemed to be concluded until no further appeal or petition for revision
can be made in the course of the proceedings.‖
Ssekitoleko Yasin aka Machette v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 0191 of 2025)
UGHCCRD 29 (18 August 2025) at 4.
Uganda Private prosecution by Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v Anita Among Annet (Civil Appeal 3
of 2024) [2024] UGHCACD 8 (15 October 2024).
Uganda Private prosecution by Male H Mabirizi K Kiwanuka v Anita Among Annet (Civil Appeal 3
of 2024) [2024] UGHCACD 8 (15 October 2024) at 5.
See for example, Uganda (Private Prosecution By Male H. Mabirizi Kiwanuka) v Honorable Mao and
Others (Criminal Appeal 8 of 2023) [2023] UGHCCRD 146 (6 July 2023); Mabirizi v Obore & 5 Others
(Miscellaneous Appeal 9 of 2024) [2024] UGHCACD 11 (3 December 2024); Basajabalaba v Kakande
(Criminal Revision 02 of 2013) [2013] UGHCCRD 19 (26 April 2013); Ssenfuka Robert and Nyanzi
Umar v Walugembe Daniel (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 55 of 2024) [2025] UGHCCRD 22
(2 June 2025)
Twagira v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2007) [2016] UGSC 36 (7 March 2016).
Twagira v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal 1 of 2007) [2016] UGSC 36 (7 March 2016) at 17.
Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) (Criminal
Miscellaneous Application 30 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 17 (11 April 2025).
For example, section 37 of the Petroleum Supply Act (2003) Chapter 163 provides that ―Any holder of
a permit or licence, any consumer of petroleum product or any recognised consumer organisation
may...subject to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, file a criminal complaint...against any
holder of a permit or licence for any offence under this Act, if he or she has previously filed a complaint
with the Commissioner and feels aggrieved by any act or omission of the Commissioner in response to
the complaint.‖
Section 18 of the Companies Act (2012) Chapter 106, provides that ―The High Court may, where a
company or its directors are involved in acts including tax evasion, fraud or where, save for a single
member company, the membership of a company falls below the statutory minimum, lift the corporate
veil.‖ Cases in which courts have dealt with the issue of lifting the corporate veil include, Abbo v Cimeel
Engineering Ltd (Miscellaneous Application No. 29 of 2013) [2018] UGCommC 41 (12 June 2018);
Guning v Naguru Tirupati Ltd & 5 Ors (Miscellaneous Application No. 232 of 2017) [2017] UGCommC
(18 September 2017); Absa Bank of Uganda Limited and 2 Others v Enjoy Uganda Limited and 2
Others (Miscellaneous Application 1243 of 2023) [2023] UGCommC 23 (19 September 2023).
Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly (1994/1995) at 3407 (Mr. Abu Mayanja).
Ibid, at 3407 (Mr Abu Mayanja).
Ibid, at 3407 (Mr Abu Mayanja).
Ibid, at 3409 (Mr Wacha).
Ibid, at 3409 (Mr Karuhanga).
Ibid, at 3409 (Mr Malinga).
The Director of Public Prosecution‘s power to delegate prosecutorial functions in Uganda (35)
Section 13 of the Employment Act, Chapter 226, provides that ―(1) A labour officer may institute civil
or criminal proceedings before the Industrial Court in respect of a contravention or alleged contravention
of this Act or regulations made under this Act, and may prosecute and appear in his or her own name in
respect of the proceedings.
(2) The rules of evidence shall apply in any criminal proceedings under this Act, but shall not apply in
any civil proceedings before the Industrial Court.‘ See also section 203 of the Insolvency Act (2011)
provides that ‗The Official Receiver shall...(c) prosecute any person for offences committed under this
Act or discovered to have a case to answer as a result of investigations carried out; (d) investigate the
conduct of insolvency practitioners and to prosecute them for any offences committed.‖ See also section
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act, Act 9 of 2006.
Section 179(7) of the Companies Act (2012), Chapter 106.
See for example, section 83(1) of the Presidential Elections Act, Chapter 179; section 37 of the Labour
Disputes (Arbitration and Settlement) Act, Act 8 of 2006 which states that ―A prosecution for any
offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by, or with the written consent of the Director of
Public Prosecutions.‖ See also section 28 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act, Chapter 258
(the word 'sanction' is used);
Section 179(7) of the Companies Act (2012), Chapter 106; section 49 of the Anti-Corruption Act
(2009), Chapter 116; section 24 of the Judicial Service Act (1997), Chapter 87; section 3 of the Anti
Terrorism Act, Act 14 of 2002; section 19 of the Prevention and Prohibition of Torture Act, Act 3 of
; section 23 of the Education Service Act (2002), Chapter 85; section 12(1) of the Official Secrets
Act (1964), Chapter 302; section 15 of the Agricultural Chemicals (Control) Act (2007), Chapter 35;
section 24 of the Health Service Commission Act (2001), Chapter 86.
Section 40(1) of the Interpretation Act provides that ‗Where, under any Act, the consent or authority of
the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions is necessary before any action or prosecution
is commenced, any document purporting to be the consent or authority of the Attorney General or the
Director of Public Prosecutions shall be received as prima facie evidence in any proceeding without
proof being given that the signature to the consent or authority is that of the Attorney General or the
Director of Public Prosecutions, as the case may be.‘
For example, section 83(4) of the Registration of Persons Act (2015), Chapter 332 provides that ―Prosecution for an offence under this Act may, without prejudice to any other powers granted to any
other public officers, be instituted by a registration officer on his or her own initiative or on a complaint
made by any person.‖
For example, section 278(2) of the Companies Act (2012), Chapter 106 ―Subject to the powers of the
Director of Public Prosecutions under Article 120 of the Constitution, proceedings in respect of any
offence under this Act may, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Criminal
Procedure Code Act, be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the Registrar at any time
within twelve months from the date on which evidence sufficient in the opinion of the Director of Public
Prosecutions or the Registrar, as the case may be, to justify the proceedings, comes to the knowledge of
the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Registrar, as the case may be; except that proceedings shall not
be so taken more than three years after the commission of the offence.‖ See also sections 83(4) and (5) of
the Registration of Persons Act (2015), Chapter 332.
For example, section 49 of the Anti-Corruption Act (2009), Chapter 116 provides that ―A prosecution
under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions
or the Inspector General of Government...‖
See for example, section 11(4) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act (2019), Chapter 12 which
provides that ―Criminal proceedings under this Act may be instituted in any of the following ways— (a)
by the Director of Public Prosecutions preferring a charge against a person; or (b) by any person making
a complaint on oath to a competent court.‖ See also section 37 of the Labour Disputes (Arbitration and
Settlement) Act, Act 8 of 2006.‘
Al-Amīr - Volume: 07 Issue No. 01 January-June 2026
(36)
For example, 93(2) of the Electronic Signatures Act (2011) Chapter 98 provides that ―An officer of the
Controller duly authorised in writing by the Director of Public Prosecutions may conduct the prosecution
for any offence under this Act.‖
Section 171 of the Local Governments Act (1997), Chapter 138.
For example, section 66(5) of the Free Zones Act (2014) Chapter 70 provides that ―Subject to the
powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Commissioner General may file charges and prosecute
in the appropriate court any person, if the Commissioner General has reasonable grounds to suspect that
criminal activities have been or are being carried committed by any person in the free zone.‖ Section
(8) of the same Act provides that ‗The powers of the Commissioner General to prosecute under this
section are subject to the powers of the Director of Public Prosecutions under article 120 of the
Constitution.‘ See also section 39(2) of the Non-Governmental Organisations Act (2016), Chapter 109.
Section 18(4) of the Uganda Wildlife Act (2019) Chapter 315 provides that ―Subject to Article 120(3)
and (4)(a) of the Constitution and subject to the directions of the Director of Public Prosecutions, in any
prosecution under this Act, an officer shall exercise all the powers of a public prosecutor appointed under
any law in force.‖ See also section 100 of the Capital Markets Authority Act which provides that ―Prosecution for an offence against any provision of this Act may be taken by the Director of Public
Prosecutions or where the Director of Public Prosecutions so directs, by the Authority or any person
appointed for that purpose.‖
Section 48(3)(h) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, Act 8 of 2003 provides that one of the
functions of the District Officer is ―to cause to be prosecuted, any person wilfully destroying any forest
resources in contravention of this Act.‖
Section 68(3)(c) of the Kampala Capital City Act, Act 1 of 2011 provides that the Minister may enact
regulations ―in respect of breaches of the law involving grave omissions, commissions and
noncompliance specified in the regulations, dismissal from the public service, health service or education
service, and where necessary, criminal proceedings at the instance of the accounting officer through the
Director of Public Prosecutions.‖
Tax Procedures Code Act (2014), Chapter 343.
Section 226 of the MCA provides that ―1. Any magistrate trying any case may permit the prosecution
to be conducted by any person, but no person other than a public prosecutor or other officer generally or
specially authorised by the Director of Public Prosecutions for that purpose shall be entitled to do so
without permission.
Any person conducting the prosecution may do so personally or by an advocate.‖
See for example, Uganda v Mpoya alias Wante & Anor (Criminal Session No. 32 of 2012) [2014]
UGHCCRD 496 (1 September 2014); Mugerwa and Another v Uganda (URA) (Criminal Miscellaneous
Application 5 of 2022) [2023] UGSC 25 (16 May 2023); Ssekamwa James Kulubya v Uganda (URA)
(Miscellaneous Application No 3 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD 19 (11 August 2025)
See Law, Acts and Regulations https://ura.go.ug/download-category/laws-and-acts/
See for example, Lorika & Another v Uganda (URA) (Criminal Appeal 1 of 2025) [2025] UGHCACD
(7 April 2025).
A copy the certificate sent to the author by one of the prosecutors reads as follows: ―IN THE
EXERCISE of the power conferred upon me under Section 222(2) and (3) of the Magistrates Court Act
Cap 19 and S 135(1) and (2) of the Trial on Indictments Act Cap. 25, I hereby appoint … [name of the
prosecutor] of UGANDA REVENUE AUTHORITY, TO act as a Public Prosecutor as longer as s/he
remains in service of the Uganda Revenue Authority. This appointment will remain in force until …
[expiry date given]. Dated at Kampala this …[date given]. Signed by … Director of Public
Prosecutions.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
