Communication 431/12 – Thomas Kwoyelo v. Uganda 239. Following his continued detention, the Victim sought relief at the High Court, which issued an order of mandamus compelling the Chairman of the Amnesty Commission and the DPP to process and grant a Certificate of Amnesty for his immediate release. The order was however not honored by the Amnesty Commission and the DPP. 240. According to the Respondent, it was not possible to issue the Certificate of Amnesty because at the time the order was issued, 25 January 2012, the mandate of the Chairman and Commissioners of the Amnesty Commission had expired lacking the legal mandate to sign amnesty certificate. 241. The power to renew the mandates of the Commissioners or to appoint new ones timeously to ensure smooth transition, without creating any irregularities in the functions of the Amnesty Commission, is exclusively that of the Government. The government should thus take full responsibility for whatever nuisances occurred as a result of its failure to appoint Commissioners in good time. It cannot invoke its own flaws or failures to exonerate itself from responsibility. 242. The Respondent further argues that in March 2012, before the Certificate of Amnesty could be legally issued, the Supreme Court issued an order staying the execution of any consequential orders arising from the Constitutional Court case. According to the Respondent the ‘consequential orders’ whose execution was stayed included the granting of an Amnesty Certificate or any order to release the Victim from custody. 243. The Complainant admits that the Supreme Court stayed the execution of any consequential orders arising from the Constitutional Court case, but adds that the Supreme Court did not give any reasons for curtailing the right to liberty of the Victim as upheld by the Constitutional Court. 65 62nd Ordinary Session, 25 April – 9 July 2018