The Kampala Land Boss Forgery Case experienced another delay on Friday, prompting the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court to issue a stern warning to the defence team. The case involves David Balondemu, the chairperson of the Kampala District Land Board, and Dr Hassan Ssegujja, both facing charges of forgery and conspiracy.
During the hearing, defence lawyer Evans Ochieng requested an adjournment. He explained that lead counsel Hassan Kumba was away in Busia on election-related duties and could not be reached. Ochieng stood in for both Mr Balondemu and Dr Ssegujja’s absent legal representative.
However, state prosecutor Viola Tusingwire objected strongly to the request. She noted that the prosecution had prepared thoroughly and brought a witness to testify. Moreover, she pointed out that elections had not started, questioning the legitimacy of the excuse. These repeated delays, she warned, hinder the progress of justice and waste valuable court time.
In response, Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi voiced his frustration with the ongoing postponements. He warned the defence that the trial would proceed on July 9, regardless of whether their lead counsel appears. By doing so, he made it clear that further delays would not be tolerated.
The magistrate also extended Mr Balondemu’s bail but emphasized the importance of respecting court schedules. He urged the defence to take the next hearing seriously and avoid additional excuses.
The charges against the two defendants relate to forged medical documents. Specifically, the prosecution claims they forged a prescription dated November 7, 2023, and a CT scan request dated June 12, 2023. Both documents allegedly came from Kampala Hospital. In addition, the two men face a separate count of conspiracy to commit a felony, which carries serious legal consequences under Ugandan law.
Unsurprisingly, the Kampala Land Boss Forgery Case has drawn public attention. As a senior figure in land management, Mr Balondemu holds a position of significant responsibility. Therefore, the public expects accountability and transparency, especially in a case involving allegations of forgery.
Legal analysts believe the court’s warning reflects a commitment to timely justice. By refusing to allow unnecessary delays, the magistrate reinforces the importance of legal discipline. Furthermore, this approach helps maintain public confidence in the judicial process.
If the defence team fails to appear on July 9, the court may allow the trial to continue in their absence. That possibility puts added pressure on the accused to comply. Given the prosecution’s readiness, any missed opportunity to respond could shift the case decisively.
In conclusion, the upcoming hearing will likely shape the future of both Mr Balondemu and Dr Ssegujja. More importantly, it will signal how Uganda’s courts plan to handle delays in high-profile cases. As the date approaches, legal observers and the public will watch closely to see whether justice is finally served.
