THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT NAKAWA
SITTING AT ENTEBBE
CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.351 OF 2013
CRIMINAL CASE NO.032 OF 2012
CRB NO.707 OF 2012
UGANDA ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
PROSECUTOR
VERSUS
DRAZUA EMMANUEL:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ACCUSED
Before: HON JUSTICE WILSON MUSENE MASALU
JUDGMENT
Domestic violence is one of the greatest social problems Uganda is faced with
today. There are an increasing number of reported incidences of domestic violence,
many of which are dangerous and have resulted into loss of lives. This case is one
of such instances of domestic violence whereby the accused, Drazua Emmanuel
and the deceased Amaite- Erina had been married for 9 years and has 3 children.
They were both employed as prison warders at Sentema Prison in Wakiso District.
Drazua Emmanuel had previously reported to his employer/prison administration
that he suggested his deceased wife to be having an extra marital affair with a boda
boda cyclist and businessman one Sadiq.
On the 13th day of August, 2012 at Sentema prisons premises, Drazua Emmanuel
shot and killed the deceased, prison wardress No.12344 Amaite Erina. When he
was arraigned he pleaded as follows:-
“I am the one who killed my wife but I had no malice aforethought.”
This court entered a plea of not guilty on the charge of murder. By that plea, the
duty under the law was cast on the prosecution to prove all the essential elements
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 1
of the offence of murder beyond reasonable doubt. This is because an accused
person bears no duty to prove his innocence since he is presumed innocent until
proved guilty. This principle of the law has been embodied in a number of cases
including Sekitoleko versus R. (1967) East Africa 531. It has also been embodied
or entrenched in Article 28 (3)(a) of the Constitution of Uganda.
The prosecution case in this matter was handled by M/S Basute Cate, Resident
State Attorney Entebbe, while the accused was defended by Mr. Aggrey Bwire a
Kampala based Advocate.
The essential elements of the offence of murder which the prosecution is obliged to
prove beyond reasonable doubt are;
a. That the person alleged to be murdered is dead.
b. That the deceased died as a result of the unlawful act or omission.
c. That whoever killed the decease did so with malice aforethought.
d. That the accused was the one who participated directly or indirectly in
causing the death of the deceased.
The above elements were restated in the case of Uganda versus Aramanzani
Mubiru (1996) H.C.B 35.
In an effort to discharge the burden of proof cast on it by the law, the prosecution
called evidence of 5 witnesses. These were Ogwang Isaac, the Assistant
supritendant of prisons, previously in-charge of Sentema prison (PW1), No. 6187
chief Grade III Warder Osege Charles (PW2), No.9913 warder Obwoya Junior
(PW3), Kateme Viola a house wife of one of the prison officers at Sentema prison
(PW4) and Dipio Angella, also house wife within Sentema prison (PW5).
The accused on the other hand gave evidence on oath as (DW1) and called one
witness Turyatunga Medard (DW2).
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 2
As to the first ingredient of the offence as to whether prison wardress No.12344
Amaite – Erina is dead? There was overwhelming evidence in proof thereof. First
and foremost was the post mortem report which was admitted in evidence at the
beginning of trial under Section 66 of the Trial on Indictment Act. The
examination was done by Dr Kalungi .S. of Mulago Hospital who described the
death as instant due to hemorrhage as a consequence of gunshot wounds. All the
prosecution witnesses alluded to the fact of death of the deceased. Even the
accused and defence witness conceded to the fact that the deceased died. It is
therefore my conclusion that this ingredient of the offence has been proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.
On the second ingredient of the offence, the position of the law is that all
homicides are presumed unlawful unless caused accidentally or justifiably either in
defence of property or person or by an act of God. R. Vs. Gusambizi S/O
Wesonga (1948) EACA 65 is a case in point among a host of others.
The prosecution’s case is that the death of Amaite was unlawfully caused. Counsel
for the state referred this court to the post mortem report PF 48, which as already
noted was tendered in court under Section 66 of the Trial on Indictment Act. The
report stated that the death was instant caused by gun wounds. Counsel for
prosecution’s contention was that the death of the deceased was as a result of the
injuries she sustained from gunshot wounds and that the evidence of PW1, PW2,
PW3, PW4 and PW5 all point to gruesome death of the deceased after sustaining
gunshot injuries.
Counsel for the accused on the other hand, submitted that the death was not
unlawful because the accused acted in self defence. In Uganda versus Sebastian
Otti (1994-95) HCB 21, Okello J as he then was held:-
“Death is excusable when caused in self defence. To constitute self
defence, there must have been an unlawful attack on the accused who as a
result reasonably believed that he was in eminent danger or serious bodily
harm and it was necessary for him to use force to repel attack made on
him.”
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 3
Counsel for the accused’s further submissions, while quoting the case of
Byabagambi Gabriel versus Uganda (2004) KARL 7 was that the accused acted
in self defence and is therefore entitled to immediate acquittal. The accused gave
detailed evidence of how he has had misunderstandings with the deceased because
she loved a boda boda man called Sadiq.
DW1 testified that he got information about the love affair from Nyakato wife of
the boda- boda man. To the extent that he found his wife red-handed in a house
with Sadiq, but left Sadiq to escape and borrowed clothes for his wife the deceased
to wear and go home. DW1 testified as to how on 13/08/2012, the deceased went
to the window of the gate lodge and threatened or warned him and told him to stop
joking with her.
All the above pieces of evidence was meant to support the defence of provocation
and self pity but the real questions rotate on the actions of the accused on the
fateful day of 13/08/2012. The accused’s testimony was that he continued shooting
at his deceased wife to scare her and that he was also scared of his life. DW1’s
testimony was that the deceased pulled a trigger but the bullet did not come out and
he did not know whether it was the gun of the deceased which was faulty or the
deceased herself.
The question this court would ask is why did the accused continue to fire or shoot
at his wife 4 times when he knew very well that his wife had pulled a trigger and
the bullet had not come out? And when DW1 was asked by the Assessor why he
kept the gun at the counter instead of returning it to the amoury, no satisfactory
explanation was given by the accused. And his witness, DW2 Turyatunga Medard
whose testimony was that he saw the deceased pointing a gun at the accused
instead turned to add that accused turned, shot the deceased on the shoulder and
then shot again till deceased fell down. DW2 concluded that accused then ran away
as he remained watching the deceased dying.
During cross examination by Counsel for state, DW2 stated categorically that he
did not at any one time see the deceased shoot. He added that the door had earlier
been opened by the accused when he got outside and he had left it open. DW2 also
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 4
added contrary to what DW1 had stated, that he did not see the deceased
addressing the prisoners. The testimony of DW2 in my view all along supported
the prosecution case. It was to the effect that it was the accused who put the
deceased at gun point, and that although the deceased was armed, she did not
retaliate.
PW1, got information while at Kakiri to return urgently to the station as accused
had shot Amaite dead. And upon return, he found Amaite dead in a pool of blood
at the gate. PW1, who was the Sentema prisons boss also testified that the accused
was not meant to have a gun at that time.
PW2, Charles Osege was the supervisor of Sentema prison at the time. His
testimony was that on 13/08/2012 at around 3:00pm/3:30pm, he entered his office.
He added that lady wardress Amaite was standing outside talking to the accused
through the window. PW2 told this court that wardress Amaite told the accused
that she could not enter inside the prison as she was holding a gun. And that the
deceased told the accused to stop joking and playing with her. The deceased, PW2
testified warned the accused that he could get a problem and then she walked
towards the direction of the sentry point.
PW2, further testified that at that juncture, he saw the accused picking the gun
under the counter and ran outside the gate as accused mentioned “let me go and
kill myself.” PW2 added that he also ran out of his office and as he stood at the
gate, he saw when the accused had put the deceased (Amaite) at gunpoint. He
added that the accused has pointed a gun at the deceased. And that the deceased
was also holding a gun sideways. PW2 added that he shouted at accused –
“Emma stop what you are doing”.
PW2’s testimony was that immediately the deceased ran towards where he was
standing and the accused shot a bullet behind her, which bullet hit the wall. And
that as he jumped off the gate, the accused shot a second bullet as the deceased was
entering the gate. PW2 added that the accused followed and stood at the gate,
shooting at the deceased direct. And that after shooting twice, accused turned and
ran away with the gun. PW2 further testimony was that he had hidden himself at
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 5
the concrete of the pavement which was very high and so he was seeing everything
and that there were some women outside the compound.
PW2 added that he then went and picked the gun of the deceased which had fallen
outside the gate and upon checking the gun, there was no bullet in the chambers of
the deceased’s gun. This court is in the circumstances inclined to believe the
testimony of PW2 because if the gun of the deceased had been cocked and she had
tried to shoot at the accused then the bullet would have come out. But the bullet
could not come out when there was no bullet in the chambers. PW2 added that the
deceased had fallen inside and was bleeding. PW2 concluded that by the time
accused picked the gun, he could not remove it from him as the counter was
outside his office and a bit far.
PW2 confirmed that the deceased was shot at a close range when she had entered
the gate lodge and that her gun fell at the gate entrance. PW2 reiterated that the
first and second bullets missed the deceased. I have had to reproduce the testimony
of PW2 in details because he was the eye witness who saw the events as they
unfolded on the fateful day. PW2 also impressed this court as a sincere, simple and
straight forward person who was stating the truth. PW2 was not shaken by the
rigorous cross examination of Counsel for the accused. I found PW2 a witness of
truth.
PW3, Warder Obwoya Junior corroborated the testimony of PW2 that accused
used the gun signed out by Warder Alemut Emmanuel to shoot his deceased wife.
The accused did not deny that he had signed the gun from Warder Alemut
Emmanuel.
PW4, Kateme Viola was in the prisons compound on the fateful day. She told this
court how accused came outside the small gate and put the deceased at gunpoint
while the gun of the deceased was downwards. PW4’s testimony like that of PW2
was that when the accused shot the first bullet, the wife (deceased) turned and ran
towards the inside of the prison. And that as deceased ran, the accused fired
another bullet which never caught her and that the deceased threw her gun as she,
PW4 and PW5 came closer raising an alarm and telling the accused, Emma to
leave the wife.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 6
PW4’s testimony was that as the deceased entered the gate, she heard other bullets
and thereafter, accused came out with a gun running. And that since the door was
open, they saw the deceased lying in a pool of blood. PW4 added that she was
with Angella (PW5). This court noted on court record that the witness, PW4 was
very steady during cross examination by Counsel for the accused and confirmed
that the accused shot the deceased inside the prison. The testimony of PW4 was
corroborated in all material particulars by that of PW5, Dipio Angella who was
also present and witnessed the events leading to the shooting of the deceased by
the accused, first outside (2 bullets) and then other bullets inside. PW5 concluded
that when Osege (PW2) came out, they (PW5 and PW4) knew the lady had died.
I now turn to the law. In the case of Yhefusa K. Mamali versus Uganda,
Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.29 of 1989, it was held:-
“Under English law there is a broad distinction made where questions of
self defence arise. In cases of self defence where no violent felony is
attempted, a person is entitled to use reasonable force against an assault,
and if he is reasonably in apprehension of serious injury provided he does
all that he is able in the circumstances, by retreat or otherwise to break off
the fight or avoid assault, he may use such force, including deadly forces
as is reasonable in the circumstances.”
That was also echoed in the case of Uganda versus Charles Oligo (1973) HCB
54, quoted by Counsel for the accused. And all that is because Section 15 of the
Penal Code Act provided that in considering the defence of self defence, the
principles of English law shall apply.
In the present case however, and given the consistent and clear testimonies of
prosecution witnesses PW2, PW4 and PW5 as summarized herein above, and who
were at the scene of crime, it was the accused who put the deceased at gun point.
The deceased was also armed but she did not retaliate. She kept her gun down
without also aiming or shooting at the accused at all.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 7
The prosecution witnesses were elaborately clear that the deceased ran away from
the accused who followed while shooting. As the deceased dropped her gun and
entered the gate lodge, that is when the accused fired the third and fourth bullets
which killed her. In such circumstances, the life of the accused was not in danger at
all, because it was the accused who put the deceased at gun point, chased her while
shooting twice and missed and went on to shoot third and fourth time till she fell
down and bled to death.
This court in the circumstances finds and holds that the chasing and shooting of the
deceased several times by the accused was not in self defence at all. It was in my
view deliberate and unlawful. The submissions by Mr. Aggrey Bwire for the
accused that it was a gun for a gun does not stand and is hereby rejected as there
was no spontaneous shooting by the deceased at the accused at all. Instead it was
the accused who in a cruel-some and uncalled for manner shot at his retreating
wife four times till he gravely injured her resulting into instant death. This court
therefore finds and holds that the second ingredient of the offence has been proved
by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The third ingredient of the offence is whether the death of the deceased was caused
with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought is defined under Section 191 of the
Penal Code Act to mean;
1. An intention to cause death of any person, whether such person is the one
actually killed or not.
2. Knowledge that the act or omission causing death will probably cause death
of a person, whether that person is the one killed or not, though such
knowledge is accompanied by indifference whether death is caused or not or
by a wish that it may be caused.
Malice aforethought is therefore a mental element of the offence of murder which
is many cases is difficult to prove by direct evidence. However, it can be inferred
from the surrounding circumstances of the offence as was held in R vs. Tubere
(1945) 12 E.A.C.A 63, Akol Patrick & Others versus Uganda (2006) H.C.B
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 8
(Vol.1)6 and Uganda versus Aggrey Kiyinji & Others Kampala High Court
Criminal Session Case No.30 of 2006.
The circumstances are:-
a) The weapon used, whether lethal or not.
b) The part of the body targeted (whether vulnerable or not);
c) The manner in which the weapon was used (whether repeatedly or not); and
d) The conduct of the assailant before, during and after the attack. (Whether
with impunity or not.
In summary, in arriving at a conclusion as to whether malice aforethought has been
established, the court must consider the weapon used, the manner in which it was
used and the part of the body injured.
In the present case, it is not disputed by either side that the weapon used was a gun,
an AK 47. The accused himself conceded that he shot at the deceased with a gun;
albeit that it was in self defence which has already been discussed and rejected by
this court given the circumstances under which the offence was committed. In the
case of Uganda versus Robert Rwanyakiro (1991) HCB 31 quoted by Learned
Resident State attorney, Byamugisha J. (as she then was) held:-
“There was no doubt that a gun was a deadly weapon and anyone using it
to shoot another would be deemed to have intended to cause the death of
the victim.”
I entirely agree with the holding in the above case. I add that in the instant case, the
prosecution evidence on record indicates that the accused shot four times. The first
two bullets missed and the 3rd and 4th bullets hit the deceased leading to instant
death as per medical report. In his defence and the submissions of Counsel for
accused, it was stated that the first bullet was intended to scare the decease and the
second bullet was accidental.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 9
The question to be asked by this court is if the first bullet was to scare, and the
second was accidental, then why did the accused continue to shoot at the
deceased by the third and fourth bullets if the intention was not to kill the
deceased?
And moreover as PW2, PW4 and PW5 testified, after the first bullet, the deceased
turned and ran towards the gate while holding a gun which she never used. Why on
earth would a man continue shooting at his wife 1, 2, 3 and 4 times even when she
was retreating? Even the ordinary person on the streets of Entebbe Municipality.
How could he/she perceive such acts of the accused if not intended to kill.
It is the finding and holding of this court in the circumstances that the way the
accused used a deadly weapon (gun) against the deceased, and the manner in
which the gun was used, shooting 1,2,3 and 4 times without any reply from the
deceased, was a clear manifestation of malice aforethought on the part of the
accused. The accused’s explanation that deceased was also pointing a gun at him
and that she fired but the bullets never came out cannot even convince a primary
seven pupil in an upcountry primary school of any part of Uganda. In any case it
was an assertion which was effectively refuted by the prosecution witnesses and
was therefore not borne out in evidence.
The other piece of evidence which clearly brings out malice aforethought on the
part of the accused was the part of the body targeted. PW1 told this court that when
she examined the dead body, it was shot around the breast. PW2 Osege who
witnessed the shooting testified that the accused shot the 3 rd and 4th bullets directly
at the deceased while the safety catch of the deceased’s gun had not been opened.
The submissions by Counsel for the accused that accused shot at the shoulders
which was not a fatal part of the body cannot be accepted by this court. Shooting
using a gun on any part of the body is very dangerous particularly the upper part of
the body which was targeted by the accused. Why didn’t the accused aim at the
legs/lower part of the body? One could ask if not the intention to kill. This is where
I disagree with the opinion of the gentlemen Assessors that the shooting at the
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 10
shoulders was to disable the deceased. This is particularly when the same court
assessor had in the same opinion blamed the accused for using excessive force.
He stated;
“According to the facts on record, accused used excessive force. This
was confirmed by DW2. He testified that the deceased had crocked the
gun but did not fire any bullet. But the accused fired 4 bullets of which 2
resulted into death.”
Having found as quoted, it surprised me when the same gentleman Assessor
concluded that the accused killed his wife without malice afore thought and
advised court to convict accused of manslaughter.
This court cannot agree that there was no manslaughter in the circumstances. This
court cannot allow anyone having a gun to test it on a human being as if he was on
a hunting spree in Queen Elizabeth National Park or Murchison Falls National
Park at Karuma. This court therefore finds and holds that the shooting of the
deceased around the breast, or any upper part of the body (vulnerable parts) was
indeed another manifestation of malice aforethought.
Lastly, the conduct of the accused before and after the commission of the offence
also proved malice aforethought beyond reasonable doubt. PW1, while answering
questions from Assessors told this court that by the time he returned, he found the
dead body of Amaite lying in a pool of blood. The accused he added that he had
ran away with the killer gun.
PW2 witnessed the shooting by the accused also testified that the accused ran away
with the gun immediately. PW4 and PW5 also confirmed that after shooting the
deceased from inside, accused came out of the gate with a gun and ran away.
In his defence, the accused purported to cry crocodile tears which tears did not
even come out. After realizing that he had shot his wife and she was bleeding
profusely, the question is why didn’t he give a helping hand to stop the bleeding or
call for assistance so that she is rushed to hospital for possible treatment instead, he
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 11
chose to run away with the killer gun leaving the deceased to die a painful death.
Can one conclude in such circumstances that there was anything less than malice
aforethought? No in my view, the accused acted with malice aforethought when he
shamelessly shot his deceased wife to death and immediately thereafter ran away at
the speed of lightening. The accused also pleaded provocation as a defence.
However, the law on provocation was summarised by the Supreme Court in
Sowedi Osire versus Uganda, Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No.28 Of 1989.
The Supreme Court held that for a charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter
on a plea of provocation, the death must have been committed in the heat of
passion before there is time for the passion to cool down. In the present case and as
the prosecution witnesses stated, the whole episode lasted 30 minutes. So there was
no heat of passion in view of the events as they unfolded.
In the premises and in view of what I have outlined, I find and hold that the
accused killed the deceased out of malice aforethought.
Finally, this court finds and holds that the action of the accused of keeping the gun
which was supposed to be returned to the armory was nothing short of a deliberate,
planned and pre-meditated intention to kill the deceased, hence malice
aforethought. The gun was left in the counter intentionally. Even the uttering of
the words that he was going to kill himself must have been in my view, to confuse
Osege. And within no minute, prosecution witnesses testified that he rushed out of
the gate lodge to where the deceased was deployed, put her at gun point.
The witnesses, particularly Osege testified that as the deceased turned to ran away
as already noted, accused followed her, shot twice but missed then moved at a
closer range and hit on the target. Had he shot once, one would be inclined to
believe that it was not intentional but not twice, thrice and fourth! The third
ingredient of the offence has therefore been proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt.
Turning to the fourth ingredient of the offence, whether it was the accused who
killed the deceased, there was overwhelming evidence to that effect. Even from the
beginning, the accused himself admitted that he is the one who shot and killed
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 12
Amaite Erina. That was echoed in his defence as DW1 and even his witness DW2.
Facts which are admitted therefore need not be proved.
In any case all the prosecution witnesses have testified that it was the accused who
fired all the bullets in their presence or within their hearing and were not in any
way contradicted or at all. In the premises, I find and hold that the fourth ingredient
of the offence has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Having found and held that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of the
offence beyond reasonable doubt, I do hereby convict the accused with the offence
of murder C/S 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.
Signed by: …………………………………….
WILSON MASALU MUSENE
JUDGE
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 13
15.1.2014;
Accused present
Basutte Cate for the state
Aggrey Bwire for the accused.
Assessors present
Betty Lunkuse, C/C present
Signed W. M. MUSENE
JUDGE
Court:
Judgment read out in open court.
Signed W. M. MUSENE
JUDGE
M/S. CATE BASUTTE, R/S/A.
There are no previous criminal records. The offence in question is rampant and
grave in nature. This is a case of Domestic Violence and in most cases women are
the victims. The deceased was a law enforcement officer killed in the performance
of her duties. The commission of the offence was premeditated. The deceased died
at the hands of her husband, a trained prisons officer meat to protect life. The right
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 14
to life is inherent and nobody has the right to take it away, considering the manner
in which the offence was committed even after warning, he did not give a helping
hand. So I pray for a deterrent sentence.
MR. AGGREY BWIRE IN MITIGATION
Before court is a convict who is a first offender. From the beginning of the case, he
did not waste much of court’s time as he willingly admitted 2 ingredients of the
offence. He is barely 30 years of age. He has 3 children, 2 of which are in court
and of very tender age. He is the only surviving parent. The circumstances under
which this offence was committed have a chequered History. In sentencing the
convict I request that court looks at where the deceased was found dead. I pray for
leniency in the circumstances.
Signed W. M. MUSENE
JUDGE
15/01/2014
SENTENCE AND REASONS:
This court is at cross road. Counsel for the state has raised serious issues relating to
Domestic Violence and the manner in which the offence was committed and the
fact that in most cases, women are victims. Whereas this court has to maintain
neutral stance as to whether most victims of Domestic Violence are men or
women, this court cannot ran away from the fact that the victim in this case was a
woman. She was indeed a law abiding citizen on duty and faced a cruel-some death
at the hands of the recklessness of the convict.
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 15
As already stated, the court is at cross roads because of the mitigating factors
raised by Mr. Bwire for convict in mitigation. The issue of children has been raised
but the children belong to both convict and the deceased. At such a tender age,
they even needed the motherly love and care more than ever before. And the
convict cannot go unpunished, whatever the circumstances because court does not
want to send wrong signals to the public at large. Everyone is equal before the law
and protection of the due process of the law. The due process of the law must not
only be followed, but it must be seen to be followed and justice must be seen to be
done in all circumstances.
Article 126(1) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that Judicial Power is
derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this
Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with the law and with
values, norms and aspirations of the people. The aspiration of the people of
Uganda are a quest for a peaceful society, where law and order reigns and where
the safety of people’s lives is guaranteed and protected. And that is why the same
Constitution provides for sanctity of life.
And no one is allowed to take away one’s life unless authorized by law. The
courts are therefore mandated to ensure that whoever breaks the law and especially
do away with the lives of others like the convict, using very dangerous and deadly
weapons such as the gun are heavily punished.
The courts will not hide their heads under the cover of Human Rights in general to
pass lenient sentences to such perpetrators of the most heinous crimes in recent
times such as the one committed by the convict in this case. To make matters
worse, the convict a trained prisons warder at the expense of the Ugandan tax
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 16
payer and using the very guns bought by the people of this country, turned the very
gun on the people he was trained to guard and protect. Further still, convict used
the peoples’ gun against his own wife of 3 children and in broad day light.
In my view, such an action was not only barbaric, cruel and
inhuman, but it reflected the actions of one of the most dangerous persons in
Uganda today.
It is therefore necessary in such circumstances for the courts to come up boldly and
decisively handle such high handed criminals with harsh penalties as a way of
protecting the population and also to serve as a general lesson for members of the
general public not to take the law in their hands.
The aggravating factors in this case was that the convict meticulously planned the
murder the whole day, first by keeping the gun with him at the counter when he
was supposed to keep it in the armory. The convict further went on to confuse and
mislead his boss by claiming or purporting that he was going to kill himself. Then
he went on to put the deceased at gun point and executed her or ruthlessly shot her
4 times, the last 2 bullets sending her to her creator. That was done in a manner
typical of firing squads under the past regime of Idi Amin, a regime of murder and
terror.
The courts will therefore not sit back and allow perpetrators of such uncivilized
and barbaric acts to go unpunished or walk away with a lenient sentence. A harsh
penalty is in the circumstances called for.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the offence as court lined and the
application of the law, I am left with no option but to sentence the convict to the
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 17
maximum penalty. Convict is hereby sentenced to suffer death in a manner
prescribed by the law.
Signed W. M. MUSENE
JUDGE
15/01/2014
Court:
Right of Appeal explained.
Signed by: …………………………………….
WILSON MASALU MUSENE
JUDGE
15/01/2014
Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Wilson Masalu Musene
Page 18
