Confession in law generally refers to an acknowledgement of certain facts, particularly an admission of guilt. However, for a confession to have legal effect against an accused person, it must be made voluntarily and without threats, coercion, force or promises of favour.
It is against this background that I am concerned about the manner in which some confessions have reportedly been obtained during the corruption crusade led by the Minister of State for Youth and Children Affairs, Hon. Balaam Barugahara.
I recall the Minister urging suspects to confess to the President, with an assurance that they would be forgiven. Such statements raise questions about whether the resulting confessions can genuinely be regarded as voluntary. For example, the Town Clerk of Luwas Town Council, Samuel Kurobe, was reportedly encouraged to confess over allegations concerning inflated land transactions, apparently believing that his confession could lead to forgiveness.
I watched with sadness video clips from Namisindwa and Budaka Districts in which two headteachers reportedly confessed to inflating student numbers in their schools.
During the encounters, the Minister prompted the headteachers to confess to allegedly misleading government through incorrect enrolment figures, suggesting that doing so could lead to forgiveness. Believing the Minister’s assurance, the two headteachers confessed on camera and, in the process, may have incriminated themselves.
This episode raises a fundamental legal question: What is the position of the law regarding self-incriminating confessions obtained in such circumstances?
The law approaches the matter differently.
First, Article 28(3)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda protects an accused person in criminal proceedings through the presumption of innocence. An accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty in accordance with the law. Therefore, an individual cannot simply be treated as guilty merely because they have publicly admitted wrongdoing.
Secondly, it is a well-established principle of criminal law that an accused person is presumed innocent. The rationale behind this doctrine is to place the burden of proving the case on the prosecution rather than on the accused.
The burden of proof rests on the person making the allegation. This principle is reflected in Uganda’s Evidence Act and in international criminal law standards, including Article 66 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
In criminal proceedings, the State must establish the guilt of the accused through admissible evidence. The accused should not be forced to prove his or her own innocence.
The courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of due process and the protection of accused persons from improper self-incrimination. In Adam v Republic, a case involving the death of Butaleja District Woman MP Hon. Cerinah Nebanda, the accused person reportedly made an admission concerning the alleged killing. The court nevertheless emphasized the requirement for the State to establish its case in accordance with the law.
The broader principle remains that an admission or confession does not automatically remove the State’s obligation to prove a criminal charge through lawful procedures and admissible evidence.
The same principle applies to confessions made in circumstances where the person did not intend the statement to be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. For instance, a person who confesses their sins during a religious service does not necessarily make a confession for the purposes of criminal prosecution. The circumstances, purpose and voluntariness of the statement are therefore important considerations.
It is, therefore, important that the officials accompanying the Minister understand and follow the formal procedures for identifying and handling suspects in criminal matters. A public confession should not be treated as a substitute for a proper criminal investigation.
Where there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, including audit findings and other documentary evidence establishing a prima facie case, the appropriate investigative and law-enforcement authorities should follow the prescribed procedures. Suspects can then be arrested where the law permits, investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted before a competent court.
The recent statement attributed to Vice President Jessica Alupo concerning consultation with the Attorney General before arrests also highlights the importance of legal guidance in government enforcement operations. Such safeguards should not be ignored.
The Penal Code Act and the Criminal Procedure Code provide the legal framework for defining offences, investigating suspected crimes, effecting arrests and prosecuting offenders. These procedures exist to ensure that justice is administered fairly and that both the rights of suspects and the interests of the State are protected.
The fight against corruption is important and must be supported. However, the fight against corruption should not itself become a reason for disregarding due process. Government institutions must ensure that evidence is collected lawfully and that suspects are subjected to proper investigations rather than being encouraged or pressured into public confessions.
There is a long-standing principle in criminal justice that it is better for many guilty people to escape conviction than for an innocent person to be wrongly convicted.
Therefore, while the corruption crusade should continue, the rightful culprits must be identified through proper investigations and prosecuted in accordance with the law. The relevant investigative and legal authorities should guide enforcement operations so that the fight against corruption strengthens, rather than undermines, the rule of law.
The writer is a legal scholar and academician from Bugisu.
