Court discharges aggravated defilement child suspect over illegal detention
In a ruling delivered on October 27, 2026, Justice Verma upheld a preliminary objection raised by the defence, declaring the proceedings against Ssenyunja a nullity and ordering his discharge unless he was otherwise lawfully held.
Court discharges aggravated defilement child suspect over illegal detention
_________________
The High Court in Mpigi has discharged a child suspect charged with aggravated defilement after finding that his rights were violated when he was detained in an adult prison for more than a year and nine months.
Lady Justice Deepa Verma ruled that the proceedings against Haruna Ssenyunja were a nullity because he was detained in an adult prison while still a child and remained on remand beyond the statutory period.
In a ruling delivered on October 27, 2026, Justice Verma upheld a preliminary objection raised by the defence, declaring the proceedings against Ssenyunja a nullity and ordering his discharge unless he was otherwise lawfully held.
The judge found that Ssenyunja was 16 years old when he was remanded to Kigo Prison on July 10, 2024, contrary to the constitutional and statutory safeguards governing the detention of children.
According to court records, Ssenyunja was born on May 2, 2008, as indicated on his child health card issued by the Ministry of Health. He attained the age of 18 on May 2, 2026.
The court found that Ssenyunja had spent approximately one year, nine months and 22 days in an adult prison while still a child, contrary to Article 34(6) of the Constitution and sections 134(8) and 136(6) of the Children Act, which provide safeguards against the detention of children with adults in adult prisons.
Justice Verma also found that Ssenyunja had remained on remand beyond the three-month statutory limit applicable to a child charged with an offence punishable by death.
The question of Ssenyunja’s age arose during proceedings on April 30, 2026, when his lawyer, Esther Nalunkuma, informed court that he was interested in exploring a plea bargain but had disclosed that he was below 18.
On June 29, 2026, the court ordered an age assessment after the defence raised concerns about establishing his age conclusively.
A radiological examination conducted at Mulago National Referral Hospital indicated that the growth plates in Ssenyunja’s wrists and knees had completely fused. The radiologist, Dr Stephen Balyejusa, concluded that the findings were consistent with a person aged above 18.
However, the defence subsequently filed a child health card indicating that Ssenyunja was born on May 2, 2008.
Justice Verma said the radiological findings established his physical maturity at the time of the examination, but did not conclusively establish his age when the alleged offence occurred or when he was remanded.
The judge said she had examined the health card and found no apparent reason, based on the evidence before her, to doubt its authenticity or the recorded date of birth.
She consequently accepted the date of birth on the health card as the best available evidence of Ssenyunja’s age at the material time.
He was charged with aggravated defilement, contrary to sections 116(3) and 116(4)(a) of the Penal Code Act.
Court records indicate that Ssenyunja was first presented before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Gomba and remanded to Kigo Prison on July 10, 2024. He was later committed to the High Court for trial on March 18, 2025.
The judge said section 155 of the Children Act requires courts to inquire into the age of a person, who appears to be below 18 and ensure that children in conflict with the law receive the special protections provided under the Constitution and the law.
In determining the appropriate remedy, Justice Verma relied on previous High Court decisions, including Uganda versus M.B.A (anotherjuvenile), in which the court considered the consequences of detaining a child in an adult prison and keeping the child on remand beyond the statutory period.
The judge observed that allowing the trial to continue without addressing the violations could compound the injustice already suffered by Ssenyunja.
She also considered provisions of the Children Act limiting the period of detention that may be imposed on a child following a finding of guilt and requiring courts to take the time spent on remand into account.
The judge concluded that the violations were sufficiently serious to warrant nullifying the proceedings.
“The preliminary objection is upheld. The accused is hereby discharged unless he is otherwise lawfully held,” the judge ordered.