The Supreme Court has been asked to strike out an appeal filed by the Attorney General challenging release orders granted to former Principal Accountant in the Office of the Prime Minister, Geoffrey Kazinda, who is currently serving a prison sentence for corruption-related offences.

Kazinda argues that the Attorney General lodged the appeal against decisions of the Constitutional Court outside the constitutionally prescribed 60-day timeframe. He contends that the delay renders the appeal illegal and that his continued imprisonment is therefore unlawful.

Through his lawyer, Richard Omongole, Kazinda maintains that he is being held in prison on the basis of what he describes as an invalid appeal. He argues that an appeal filed out of time cannot sustain any legal consequences and should be struck out, paving the way for his release.

However, proceedings took a dramatic turn when Supreme Court justices revealed a critical omission in the Constitutional Court judgment that forms the basis of the appeal.

Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn

Nearly six years after the judgment was delivered, the Supreme Court noted that one of the five judges who heard and determined Kazinda's petition at the Constitutional Court did not sign the judgment.

The head of the panel, Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, explained that the omission involved Justice Ezekiel Muhanguzi, who had been elevated to the Supreme Court at the time the judgment was delivered and did not append his signature to the decision.

As a result, the Supreme Court has directed lawyers for both Kazinda and the Attorney General to address a key legal question: whether the failure of one judge to sign a judgment renders that judgment invalid in law.

The court will consider submissions from both sides before determining the legal effect of the omission and the fate of the Attorney General's appeal. A ruling is expected by February 12, 2026.

Kazinda is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence for corruption-related offences.

He maintains that both his conviction and sentence are invalid, arguing that the Constitutional Court had halted prosecutions arising from the same investigations that led to his conviction.