A child’s statement can sustain a conviction — Supreme Court

 ________________

The Supreme Court has ruled that a child’s contemporaneous statement and cogent circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction.

The court made the pronouncement in a case in which Alex Byaruhanga was convicted and sentenced to 28 years’ imprisonment for defiling a six-year-old girl.

On April 16, 2026, Justices Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Stephen Musota and Christopher Madrama ruled that the sentence imposed on Byaruhanga was not illegal.

“We therefore find no error in the sentence imposed. The sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial Judge and upheld by the Court of Appeal is hereby confirmed,” Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza ruled.

The justices observed that it was a disguised appeal against the severity of the sentence, which is prohibited by law.

They said the appellant did not adduce a valid reason that would lead them to depart from the findings of the lower courts.

The justices agreed with the lower courts that the appellant was properly identified and that there were no co-existing circumstances which would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt on his part.

“The prosecution evidence was sufficient to warrant a conviction,” Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza ruled.

The justices noted that the behaviour of the appellant following the incident, when he fled after being recognised by the victim’s grandmother, with whom he had interacted the day before, did not reflect that of an innocent individual.

They said the victim’s testimony, which was relayed to the grandmother, was rightly found credible by the courts after careful scrutiny of its reliability. The justices said the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction in the absence of an identification parade.

Court documents indicate that on January 18, 2015, the appellant arrived at Bukirwa’s drinking joint at 8:30 am and purchased waragi. After consuming the drink, he left.

He later returned at 11:30 am and ordered more of the local gin. The grandmother observed that the victim was once again alone with the appellant inside the bar.

She rebuked the victim and issued a firm warning to the appellant to refrain from becoming too familiar with her grandchild. Additionally, the grandmother noticed that the child had a packet of cookies and a bottle of soda, which the appellant had bought for her.

The appellant left at around 5:00 pm, coinciding with the time when all of Bukirwa’s grandchildren were heading to a birthday party in the neighbourhood. The victim did not return home that night and appeared the following day at 7:30 am, having been defiled.

She disclosed and confessed to her grandmother that the uncle who had bought her the soda and cookies had taken her and had defiled her throughout the night.

The appellant was subsequently apprehended, tried and convicted for the offence of aggravated defilement.