Masaka man acquitted of murder after decade in jail

By Betty Amamukirori

A 39 year old man has finally regained his freedom 10 years after he was wrongly convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison for raping and thereafter murdering a woman.

In 2004, Masaka High Court judge Moses Mukiibi, convicted Francis Magembe on two counts of murder and rape, and later sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently.

Prosecution heard that on July 27, 2003, Magembe, then a resident of Kanyogoga village in Masaka District, raped and murdered Maria Nakintu who lived in the same area.

Prosecution also told court that he was arrested in August 2003 at Kirinya Village after he disappeared from where he resided before the deceased was murdered.

On Tuesday, a panel of three judges quashed the convictions and ordered for Magembe’s immediate release.

The three judges, A. S. Nshimye, Eldad Mwangusya and Richard Buteera, unanimously agreed that Magembe was wrongfully convicted and sentenced.

This follows an appeal filed by Magembe showing his dissatisfaction with the decision of the High Court Judge.

He appealed on two grounds saying the judge erred when he accepted the prosecution’s evidence that placed him at the scene of crime.

He also said the judge erred when he concluded that he had the exclusive opportunity to commit both offences.

His lawyer Yunus Kasirivu faulted the judge for relying on circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution, that the appellant was seen walking ahead of the deceased on that fateful day.

Kasirivu told court that the evidence did not amount to sufficient circumstantial evidence to place the appellant at the scene of crime.

He also said that the judge erred when he reached a conclusion based on the behaviour of the appellant of not showing concern upon hearing about the victim’s death and failing to attend the burial.

He said that was not enough evidence to support convictions of the appellant as indicted, and that the evidence adduced by prosecution had gaps.

State attorney Emmanuel Muwonge acknowledged that the case was based on circumstantial evidence, but said that the conduct of the appellant was inconsistent with his innocence.

However, the panel of judges found the evidence wanting and left room for other inferences than the guilt of the appellant.

“The fact that the appellant was on the same road with the deceased does not rule out the fact that she might have been raped by another person,” the judgment read in parts.

The judges said that the prosecution did not adduce enough evidence to place the appellant at the scene of crime but only adduced weak evidence to implicate the appellant.

“This court therefore, having re-evaluated the evidence on record, finds that the appellant was wrongfully convicted and charged,” read the judgment.