The Supreme Court has again refused bail to John Kaltonga, who faces a single charge of rape, after Justice Maree MacKenzie ruled that the accused failed to establish the “good or special reasons” required under Section 60 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Kaltonga, represented by Mrs. Mary Grace Nari, made his third bid for bail following delays that forced the adjournment of his part-heard trial. The trial began on 1 December, with the complainant giving evidence. Two remaining prosecution witnesses—both “recent complaint” witnesses—were unavailable due to late service of summonses. The hearing will now resume on 16 February 2026.
Justice MacKenzie accepted that the delay amounted to a “material change of circumstance,” allowing the fresh application to be considered. Despite this, the court concluded that the delay was neither undue nor unreasonable given the case timeline.
Kaltonga has been in custody since his arrest on 7 March 2025. By the time the trial resumes, he will have spent approximately 11 months on remand. Justice MacKenzie ruled that this period alone did not justify bail, observing that delays of this length are not uncommon in serious criminal cases.
The defence argued that the adjournment and the need for counsel to take full instructions were grounds for release. The court rejected this, noting that the complainant had already given evidence and that counsel had been able to present Kaltonga’s defence fully during cross-examination.
The Public Prosecutor counsel opposed bail, citing risks of witness interference and the accused’s prior criminal history.
Justice MacKenzie cited Kaltonga’s three criminal convictions from 2023 and 2024—including domestic violence, disorderly behaviour, malicious damage, and intentional assault—as indicators of a high risk of reoffending.
“These are not one-off convictions,” the judge said, noting that the offences occurred in Siviri village, where Kaltonga normally resides. The court also referred to four additional pending cases involving alleged acts of indecency, burglary, threats, and breach of a protection order, although these complaints remain stalled within the Public Prosecutor’s Office.
Justice MacKenzie concluded that the combination of proven convictions and unresolved allegations demonstrated “a propensity for committing criminal offences,” and that strict bail conditions or sureties would not sufficiently reduce the risk.
While acknowledging Kaltonga’s constitutional presumption of innocence, the judge reiterated that Section 60 requires applicants facing life-imprisonment offences to demonstrate special or good reasons for release, which Kaltonga had not done.
The court therefore ordered that Kaltonga remain in custody until the trial resumes in February.
