MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6946010160 · doi:10.31261/ppk.2024.08.02.02

Presidential pardon(s) in Uganda

2024· article· en· W6946010160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProblemy Prawa Karnego · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)PretextLegislationSubject (documents)SubpoenaConstitution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Constitution of Uganda, there are two circumstances in which a person may be granted a pardon. A pardon may be granted to a person before he/she has been prosecuted for an offence. Thus, Article 28(10) of the Constitution provides that ‘[n]o person shall be tried for a criminal offence if the person shows that he or she has been pardoned in respect of that offence.’ A pardon can also be granted to a person after he/she has been convicted of an offence. This is under Article 121(1)(a) which provides that the President, on the advice of the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy, may ‘grant to any person convicted of an offence, a pardon either free or subject to lawful conditions.’ On the basis of Article 121, the President has pardoned hundreds of prisoners without imposing any condition(s). As a result, they are often released from prison immediately. These could be classified as free or unconditional pardons. However, Ugandan legislation is silent on the grounds on which a free pardon may be granted and whether a free pardon expunges a conviction. Relying on case law and legislation from countries such as South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, the author argues that since Ugandan legislation does not provide that a free pardon should only be granted to a person who was wrongfully convicted of an offence, a free pardon does not expunge a conviction. Under Article 121(6), the President’s pardon powers do not extend to those convicted by a Field Court Martial. However, in Uganda Law Society and Another v Attorney General, the Constitutional Court held that Article 121 is applicable to cases where the offenders were convicted by a Field Court Martial. It is argued that this reasoning is contrary to the drafting history of Article 121(6). It is also argued that Article 121(6) is only applicable in cases where the Field Court Martial was operating during an armed conflict. The Constitutional Court held that a prisoner has a right to petition the President to exercise the prerogative of mercy. It is argued that this view is neither supported by Article 121 nor any legislation. It is also argued that section 102 of the Trial on Indictments Act which provides for the role of the Minister in the prerogative of mercy process is contrary to Article 121(5) of the Constitution and should be interpreted to bring it in conformity with the Constitution or be declared unconstitutional. Parliament may have to amend or enact legislation to expressly stipulate whether a free pardon expunges a conviction.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0990.009

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProblemy Prawa KarnegoSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207