MPs Reject DPP Budget Proposal, Citing Political Interference and Poor Performance

The DPP, established under Article 120 of the Constitution, holds the critical responsibility of instituting criminal proceedings in all courts with competent jurisdiction, excluding the Court Martial.

Legislators on the Committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs have rejected the Directorate of Public Prosecutions’ (DPP) request for funding for its Inspections and Quality Assurance Department. The rejection came during a session with officials from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP) on Tuesday, 1 April 2025. The committee members criticized the office for alleged political interference in its operations and poor performance in managing cases, calling into question the effectiveness and accountability of the DPP in upholding its constitutional mandate.

The DPP, established under Article 120 of the Constitution, holds the critical responsibility of instituting criminal proceedings in all courts with competent jurisdiction, excluding the Court Martial. However, concerns over its transparency and the fairness of its prosecutorial actions have persisted, especially with the growing public outcry over what some view as politically motivated prosecutions.

One of the most notable criticisms came from Erute County South Member of Parliament, Hon. Jonathan Odur, who questioned the DPP’s handling of case management. He specifically brought up the case of RtCol. Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused demanded clarity on why the prosecution had not proceeded despite the files being sanctioned for further investigation. “We have one case that is already in the public domain; RtCol. Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused. When are you going to prosecute that matter instead of repeatedly requesting more time under the guise of further investigations?” Odur asked, emphasizing that the DPP had already authorized further investigation into the case, suggesting that there was sufficient evidence to move forward with the prosecution.

Odur went on to express concerns over the DPP’s tendency to prosecute individuals without clear evidence. He condemned the practice, highlighting the personal harm it causes to innocent individuals who might be wrongfully prosecuted. “Do you understand what it means for someone who is innocent, yet you still proceed with the case despite clear evidence showing there’s no solid ground for prosecution?” he questioned. “Do you realise the harm you cause such individuals?”

Adding to the concerns, Odur also expressed frustration with what he described as the DPP’s failure to check excesses from the Executive, calling into question the independence of the office. He then made a firm statement rejecting the proposed budget for the Inspections and Quality Assurance Department. “What inspections have you carried out to ensure your prosecutors adhere to professional conduct?” he demanded.

Soroti District Woman MP, Hon. Anna Adeke, also voiced her concerns regarding political interference in the prosecutorial process. She questioned why DPP prosecutors were reportedly taking orders from government security operatives, including Resident District Commissioners (RDCs) and District Internal Security Officers (DISOs). “What business do your prosecutors have in taking orders from RDCs, DISOs, etc.? Your office is being used for all the wrong reasons,” Adeke said, pointing out the alarming level of control exerted by the government over the legal proceedings.

The criticism was further reinforced by West Budama North East MP, Hon. Fox Odoi-Oywelowo, who highlighted findings from the 11th Annual Report on the State of Equal Opportunities for the 2023/2024 financial year. According to the report, the DPP had been underperforming, with multiple cases failing to progress or being mishandled, which, Odoi-Oywelowo argued, was evidence of the office’s inefficiency.

In response to the lawmakers' concerns, the Principal Policy Analyst at the ODPP, Viola Tucungwirwe, pledged to address the issues raised during the session. She acknowledged the concerns about the performance of the DPP but urged the legislators to reconsider their decision and support the funding request. Tucungwirwe emphasized that the office requires additional resources to recruit state attorneys and non-legal officers, improve communication, and strengthen its operational units to effectively carry out its mandate.

While the lawmakers were sympathetic to the challenges faced by the DPP, their demand for greater accountability and transparency was clear. The rejection of the funding proposal for the Inspections and Quality Assurance Department marks a significant turning point for the DPP, forcing the office to confront serious allegations regarding its independence, political influence, and operational shortcomings.