In an interesting decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a decision of the Court of Appeal that sentenced the accused persons to 30 years’ imprisonment for murder. The Supreme Court, empanelled by five Justices: Prof. Lilian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Stephen Musota, and Catherine Bamugemereire, faulted the Court of Appeal for imposing differing sentences of 20 and 30 years’ imprisonment on five accused persons without explaining the rationale for doing so, yet all of them were found guilty of killing their relative, Kasozi Gerald.
“We find reason to interfere with the Court of Appeal sentences, which did not explain or justify why the sentences for the appellants found to have had a common intention in the murder of the deceased were varying. This finding, in our considered opinion, is an important factor while sentencing. We, for that reason, set aside the sentences of 30 years’ imprisonment imposed against each of the appellants in the instant appeal. In the interests of fairness and justice, we invoke the inherent powers of this Court, under Rule 2 (2) of the Rules of this Court and consider afresh the mitigating and aggravating factors on record regarding each individual Appellant,” the Justice’s ruling reads in part.
However, after setting aside the 30-year imprisonment sentence that the Court of Appeal had awarded, the Justices again reimposed the same 30-year sentence, arguing that it was consistent with the sentencing guidelines. “We have considered the provisions of Paragraph 19 of the Sentencing Guidelines, which outlines a range of 35 years’ imprisonment to the death penalty as the range for a sentence on conviction of murder. On that basis, save for the aspect of the first appellate court not justifying or explaining the variation of the sentences against the appellants convicted under common intention, we find the sentences of imprisonment for 30 and 20 years respectively imposed by the Court of Appeal against the appellants were within the sentencing ranges under the said Sentencing Guidelines,” the ruling reads in part.
The judgment arises from a High Court decision to convict six people, all residents of Kanogozi Village, Maddu Sub-county, Gomba District, for the murder of Kasozi Gerald. Kasozi was violently attacked on the night of June 19, 2009, and died from internal and external bleeding caused by deep head injuries and fractured bones. Muganga Richard (brother to Nakiganda, who was married to Kasozi’s brother), Bwengesa Paul (the father to Kasozi), Nakiganda Annet (widow to Kasozi’s brother), Nassimbwa Barbra (Kasozi’s stepmother), Kalule Tadeo (nephew to Nassimbwa), and Rujaga Donoziyo, a resident of the village, were arrested and charged with murder.
According to court documents, in 2007, Kasozi bought land with a water source from his father, Bwengesa, and fenced it off. This action enraged his father, resulting in tensions developing between the two. Later, Bwengesa and Nassimbwa’s son, Andrew Kamoga, died in 2008, while Edward Nsamba, also a son of Bwengesa and husband to Nakiganda, died in March 2009. Bwengesa accused Kasozi of bewitching them. He allegedly told several people, including his daughters, that he would kill Kasozi in revenge.
It was alleged that Bwengesa, Nassimbwa, and Nakiganda then masterminded a plan to kill Kasozi by hiring assailants to carry out the act. On June 18, 2009, Muganga, Kasozi, and Rujaga were seen seated together in Bwengesa’s plantation, discussing. During the night of the same day, Kasozi’s house was broken into, and he was killed. The attackers had torches, which they kept flashing during the attack. With the aid of the light from the torches, Kasozi’s wife and children recognized three of the assailants as Rujaga Donosio, Kalule Tadeo, and Muganga Richard.
They were all arrested together with Bwengesa, Nassimbwa, and Nakiganda for the murder of Kasozi. The High Court found them guilty of murder and sentenced them to 60 years’ imprisonment. They appealed both the conviction and the sentence. However, Bwengesa died in prison in 2019 before the appeal was heard. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction for murder against all six but held that the sentences of 60 years’ imprisonment against each of the five were too harsh.
It accordingly reduced the sentences of Nassimbwa and Nakiganda to 20 years’ imprisonment, and those of Muganga, Kalule, and Rujaga to 30 years. The court also deducted the three years they spent on remand and accordingly sentenced them to 17 and 27 years’ imprisonment respectively. It is this disparity in sentencing that Muganga, Kalule, and Rujaga appealed against in the Supreme Court, alleging that it was illegal as it offended the principle of uniformity and consistency in sentencing.
In their decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the appellants that the decision was illegal because it did not explain the reason for the disparity in sentencing after finding that all the accused persons were guilty of murder.“We agree or accept that, under the law, the degree of participation of an individual offender may be an aggravating or a mitigating factor, depending on an individual’s role, when sentencing co-offenders convicted under the doctrine of common intention; and that the discretion to issue varying sentences in such circumstances of common intention convictions lies entirely with the court handling the matter.
However, in the instant appeal, there is nothing apparent on the record to show that the learned Justices of Appeal did consider the degree of participation as either a mitigating or an aggravating factor when they were sentencing the appellants. While it is an evident correct finding of the learned Justices of Appeal, as is apparent on the record, that the Appellants in the instant appeal were identified at the scene of the crime while their co-appellants at the Court of Appeal were not, they said Justices of Appeal did not directly state in their judgment that they relied on that finding to give the varying sentences,” the ruling reads in part.
The Justices therefore held that without explaining the reason for varying the sentences, there was a miscarriage of justice since the sentences against the appellants, who were all principal offenders in the commission of the murder, were different. “In that regard, we would agree with the Appellants that the learned Justices of Appeal issued varying sentences to the appellants before them without justification. This is in the sense that, having rightly emphasized the need to have uniformity and consistency in sentencing, they did not give reasons for, or explain, the variation in the sentences they imposed against the co-accused appellants before them,” the Justices of the Supreme Court ruled-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
