Buganda riots: The legal drama

JULIET KIGONGO

IN SUMMARY: 

Three years ago, Kampala city and the neighbouring districts erupted in riots after the Kabaka of Buganda was block from going to Kayunga. The riots left more than 27 people dead and property worth millions of shillings destroyed. In the second part of our three-part series, we bring you the cry for justice of the victims, the legal drama and a transcript of what the radio presenters actually said that allegedly sparked off the riots.

.............................

Kampala, Uganda.

On April 10, 2012, 24 prisoners walked into the High Court in Kampala, and took to the dock where a charge of terrorism, for which they had been locked up at Luzira Prison was read out to them. They all pleaded not guilty.

There would be drama in the High Court over their 16-day marathon trial. 

Police officers brought in to testify against the suspects accused of burning Nateete Police Station during the September 2009 Buganda riots either identified wrong suspects, failed to identify themselves or inexplicably chose to testify about alleged theft of their property -- not the terrorism charges.

The accused were soon acquitted. But before they walked free, questions were asked if the investigating officers were up to the task, and if at all, any investigations were carried out. Questions were also asked of the Director of Public Prosecution.

The suspects through their lawyers Mr Apollo Makubuya and Medard Ssegona also submitted that Section7 (2) C of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 2002, under which they were charged did not clearly define what constitutes the offence of terrorism. “The rules of statutory interpretation require that legislation must be interpreted based on the plain meaning of the words or phrases used in the law,” Mr Makubuya argued.

Police officers: Vincent Okurut, Leuben Wasiima, Rose Nabakooza, Apollo Mugabi, Boaz Muhairwe, Meddie Ddumba, Loy Nambozo, Edward Mukholi and Joseph Otim will go down in the annals of judicial history as some of the most astonishing state witnesses.

Share This Story

     

The trial started off on a shaky note as the officers fumbled their testimony. Ms Rose Nabakooza attached to Nateete Police Station and Boaz Muhairwe of Katwe Police Station contradicted each other. Ms Nabakooza told court that she did not participate in the arrest of the suspects while Muhairwe says he executed the arrest with Nabakooza.

Mr Muhairwe then stunned the court when he said that he arrested two suspects — Meddie Nsubuga and Muzafaru Mugisha — for stealing his refrigerator and mattress and that he was in court to testify about the theft of his property, contrary to state attorney Vincent Wagona’s submission.

“So you’re in court to testify against theft and not terrorism?” asked Mr Sseggona.

“Yes, and I want them to be charged with theft now,” Mr Muhairwe said.

“But you cannot charge them with theft now, because they are here on treason and terrorism [charges],” said Judge Raphael Ochan.

The inconsistencies in the first five witness statements left Judge Ochan no option but to acquit the first four suspects, setting off a chain reaction in what would turn out to be a race to the bottom for the prosecution.

Midway through the trial, Principal State Attorney Wagona attempted to get the charge amended to include the offence of destruction of property. He was stopped in his tracks by the judge after Sseggona argued that it would be unfair to include new charges after the accused had already been held for nearly three years without trial.

When asked to identify the suspects he had arrested, Mr Muhairwe pointed at a different suspect by the names of Sadat Luswata Buyungo not Nsubuga. The suspects in the dock began laughing, prompting their lawyer, Sseggona, to ask what was funny. “That is not Nsubuga, he is Sadat,” one of the suspects said. The judge cross-checked his notes, which proved the police officer wrong.

Witness number 11, Okello, expressed ignorance of the law and argued that it was okay to charge people after keeping them for 10 days in custody beyond the 48 hours spelt out in the Constitution. 

Mr Okello could not tell dates on which the case file was sent to the DPP or when he made his own statement in a case that he personally handled. He said basing on the statements he had collected from other police officers, he suggested that a charge of terrorism should be preferred against the suspects.

He stunned court when he said that he sent the case file to the DPP on September 23, 2009, and later on got the file back to include his own statement which he made in May 2010 because he was busy, long before the suspects had been charged before Makindye Magistrates’ Court.

In the end, Mr Wagona, conceded that there were inconsistencies in the evidence of his 11 witnesses. Mr Wagona’s case was fatally weakened when Detective Edward Mukholi admitted that he lied to court that three of the youths had been convicted by Nsangi court. He also admitted that police produced the suspects in court after 11 days contrary to the Constitution but attributed it to the insecurity and numerous arrests carried out.

It also turned out at the end that junior police officers investigated the case contrary to the law which requires senior officers to investigate treason cases. Before Judge Ochan set free the last batch of the suspects, he said that he was disappointed with both the police and the prosecution. Three years after they were locked, the 24 regained their freedom and promised to sue the State.

Source: Saturday Monitor (08/09/2012): http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Buganda+riots++A+cry+for+justice/-/688334/1499240/-/o0xbplz/-/index.html