Ggaba murder case: Judgment fixed for Thursday

________________

Christopher Onyum Okello, who is accused of stabbing to death four toddlers at Ggaba Early Childhood Development Centre on April 2 this year, will know his fate on Thursday this week.

This is after High Court judge Alice Komuhangi Khaukha, who is presiding over the trial on Monday, April 27, 2026, announced that she will deliver her verdict in the matter this Thursday. 

Okello is accused of stabbing to death Ryan Odeke (1.5 years), Keisha Agenorwoth Otim (2 years), Gideon Eteku (2.5 years) and Ignatius Sseruyange (2.5 years) on April 2 at Ggaba Early Childhood Development Centre on April 2 in a manner many people have described as barbaric.

Assessors opinion

In a joint layman’s opinion delivered on Monday, April 27, the three assessors, including John Musana, Racheal Ainomugisha and Maria Theopista Kyolijja, advised the judge to convict Okello, saying that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the ingredients of each count of murder that has been brought against him.

“My lord, in his defence, the accused person stated that he did not intentionally kill the four children and claimed that he was coerced and influenced by certain circumstances to act as he did on April 2. However, he did not present any evidence to support his claim. We therefore find that the accused was of sound mind at the time of committing the offence. We therefore advise this honourable court to convict him on all four counts,” the assessors said.

Citing the medical reports of Dr Rogers Agenda (PW12) and that of Dr Emmanuel Nuwamanya (PW11), the assessors said Okello was mentally stable at the time of committing the offences.

Based on the CCTV evidence, the call data records and the evidence of Phoebe Namutebi, a caretaker at the daycare that was adduced in court by the prosecution, the assessors found that the prosecution not only placed him at the scene of the crime but also demonstrated his participation in the commission of the offences.

Before the assessors rendered their opinion, there was a legal showdown between the prosecution and the defence lawyers as each party presented its respective final submissions in the matter, with the prosecution asking the court to convict Okello while the defence lawyers asked the court to acquit him, claiming that he was suffering from the disease of the mind at the time of committing the offences. 

Prosecution submissions

Presenting the final submissions on behalf of the prosecution, Chief State Attorney Jonathan Muwaganya asked the court to convict Okello, saying the defence failed to prove the defence of insanity.

“My lord, we invite you to find that the prosecution has not just proved all four ingredients of the offences of murder, but the accused’s defence of insanity is unavailable because he has not discharged the legal burden on him and find him guilty on all four counts of murder. We so pray, my lord,” Muwaganya submitted.

Citing the Supreme Court decision in the case of Nsabimana versus Uganda, Muwaganya submitted that the defence failed to prove that Okello was suffering from a disease of the mind which deprived him of understanding the nature and consequences of his actions.

Muwaganya submitted that it was not the duty of the prosecution to lead evidence showing that Okello was suffering from the disease of the mind, as the defence lawyers claimed.

Citing section 10 of the Penal Code Act, Muwaganya submitted that the burden should be shouldered by the accused to demonstrate that he was suffering from the disease of the mind at the time of committing the offence because under the law every person is considered sane until the contrary is proved.

Rebutting the defence claims that Okello was suffering from the disease of the mind at the time of committing the offence, Muwaganya said Okello, in his defence, merely stated that he believes that his actions on the fateful day could have been influenced by the distress he could have had between January and March this year.

“My lord, the accused didn’t say that on April 2, when he killed the infants, he was suffering from a disease of the mind. The presumption of sanity is a very strong presumption, and to rebut it, the defence must do more than merely speculating on the possibility of a likely mental disorder,” Muwaganya stated.

“As opposed to what the defence submitted, where there is any doubt, the law favours criminal culpability and not the other way round,” Muwaganya submitted.

Citing the decision in the case of Joshua Jjumba versus Uganda, Muwaganya submitted that the mental state of an accused is assessed at the time of commission of the offence.

“My lord, it is not enough for the accused to say I have ever suffered from the disease of the mind, that is not sufficient,” Muwaganya said.

Citing a Philippine case, Muwaganya said for the defence of insanity to succeed, insanity must be present at the time of commission of the crime, must be established to have been the primary cause of the criminal act and medically proven.

“My lord, our submissions are that the defence has failed in proving any of the laid down principles to prove that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind at the time of committing the heinous crimes,” Muwaganya submitted.

Muwaganya noted that for a person to rely on the defence of insanity, he or she must be totally deprived of their understanding and memory to be exempted.

“He must be no more than an infant. By our nature as humans, nobody has a perfect mind, but for one to claim imperfection of mind, you must demonstrate that you are incapable of doing something, just like a baby. In our case, the allegations of insanity are simply a vague oral reference to an alleged distress between January and March this year,” Muwaganya said.

On the supposed effect of sickle cell on Okello, Muwaganya submitted that it cannot be a basis for killing the children.

Citing the evidence of Dr Emmanuel Nuwamanya (PW11) and Dr Rogers Agenda (PW12), who had previously examined the accused on a private basis just three months before the offence and still found him to be clear-minded, Muwaganya said the court should find Okello Was of sound mind at the time of killing the children.

“PW15 (James Eserait) clearly told court that Okello told him that he knew that he had killed the four children and he could either be jailed or killed,” Muwaganya submitted.

Regarding the absence of the same averments in Eserait’s police statement, Muwaganya, the police statement cannot be used to override evidence of a witness on oath before court.

“In this case, without further emphasis, the revelation of the accused cannot be of a person who doesn't understand the nature of his actions,” Muwaganya submitted.

On his participation, Muwaganya said both direct and circumstantial evidence adduced in court placed the accused at the scene of the crime, and the defence never rebutted the same.

“My lord, the evidence and more we laid on record is sufficient to place the accused at the scene, but also proves participation.

We want to add that throughout his defence, the accused never denied causing the death of the deceased children but only said he believed he didn’t have the intention to cause their death. He claimed that he was stressed between January and March this year, and his killing of the four children could have had something to do with his alleged distress.

My lord, from the accused’s defence, we understand him to be raising a defence of insanity which has not been proved,” Muwaganya submitted.

Defence submissions

In their submissions, defence lawyers Richard Kumbuga and Sarah Awero invited the court to acquit Okello, saying he was suffering from shrozephenia, a mental disorder.

Citing section 11 of the Penal Code Act, Kumbuga submitted that a person is not criminally responsible for any act or omission if, at the time of doing it, he or she is, through any disease affecting his or her mind, incapable of understanding his or her actions.

“Therefore, my lord, the conduct of the accused and the mind must work together for him to be criminally responsible for his acts. My lord, it is on record that between 2016 and 2025, the accused was suffering from mental illness,” Kumbuga submitted.

Citing the evidence of Dr Nuwamanya, who said that in his interactions with Okello, he informed him that he not only had a history of mental illness but also participated in the killing of his stepbrother, attempted to commit suicide, and lived on the street for some time, Kumbuga invited the court to find that Okello was suffering from mental illness at the time of committing the offence.

“My lord, Dr Rogers Agenda from IHK examined the accused on December 31, 2025, and his evidence is as of that date. The question was put to him, and he confirmed that episodes of mental illness can occur to a person at any time. Nuwamanya examined the accused on April 7, 2026. So, the question for this court to answer is whether or not the accused was normal on April 2 when that incident happened,” Kumbuga submitted.

Drawing from the evidence of the doctors that mental illness episodes can occur at any time in the victim’s life, Kumbuga submitted that finding Okello guilty was tantamount to finding an innocent person guilty.

“My lord, upon the arrest of the accused person on April 2, he was taken to a police surgeon on April 7, and PW6 alluded to the fact that he was breathing heavily. He was found in possession of painkillers, which the doctors said can also cause mental illness. We invite you to acquit the accused,” Kumbuga said.

In regard to the participation of the Okello, Kumbuga submitted that the evidence of the CCTV camera was not sufficient because it was opaque, rendering it difficult to recognise the person in the video. Kumbuga also said there was no visitor's book to ascertain if Okello visited the daycare on April 2.

Kumbuga also said there is no medical report on court record concerning the mental state of the accused, claiming that convicting him of the offences will be tantamount to convicting an innocent person.

“My lord, in concluding remarks, poor investigations are not merely administrative errors but systematic breakdowns that cause profound harm to the victims and erode public trust in law enforcement. My lord, allow me to rest my submissions and leave it to court to decide on who participated in the commission of this crime,” Kumbuga submitted.