Ggaba murder: Law Society wants trial transferred to High Court premises

KAMPALA - With concerns of lack of a law library, consultation room and confidential attorney-client space, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has filed an application seeking to have the hearing of the Ggaba toddlers murder case transferred to the premises of the Criminal Division of the High Court in Kampala.

The hearing of the case started on Monday, April 13, 2026, in the first-ever High Court mobile session in the country at Ggaba Community Church, a few meters away from the Ggaba Early Childhood Centre, where the gruesome murders allegedly occurred on April 2, 2026.

Christopher Onyum Okello is accused of stabbing four toddlers to death at the school. These include Ryan Odeke (1.5 years), Keisha Agenorwoth Otim (2 years), Gideon Eteku (2.5 years) and Ignatius Sseruyange (2.5 years). So far, six witnesses have testified in the matter.

In its application, ULS argues that the deliberate relocation of the trial to the churchyard where the four toddlers were mourned, combined with live-streaming, secretly determined categorisation-based public access regulations, pre-determined one-week duration and prior ministerial pronouncements of guilt, renders the trial court structurally incapable of independence or impartiality.

All this the lawyers' body argues violates the presumption of innocence, adequate preparation time and facilities guaranteed by Articles 28(1), 28(3)(a), 28(3)(c) and 44(c) of the Constitution.

The lawyers' body further contends that the mobile court was convened pursuant to executive direction rather than judicial necessity, contrary to the narrow and exceptional scope of Legal Notice No. 1 of 2026 and Section 5 of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Citing statements attributed to the state minister for youth and children, Balaam Barugahara, concerning the case, ULS avers that the unbroken chronological chain of presidential and ministerial directives followed by immediate judicial compliance constitutes prohibited interference with judicial power under Article 128(1) and 128(2) of the Constitution.

In her affidavit in support of the application, Christine Awori, the ULS chief executive officer, contends that by relocating the trial from a well-equipped courtroom to a churchyard and pre-setting trial length and other modalities by stakeholder consensus without representatives of the national bar, the judiciary negated the state's obligation to ensure due process and equality of arms.

“I know that Legal Notice No. 1 of 2026 permits mobile courts only for genuine access barriers but not for televised capital trials twelve kilometres from an equipped High Court,” Awori contends.

Awori, also an advocate of the courts of judicature in Uganda, argues that the Ggaba murder trial is a civilian replica of the Kotido Field Court Martial declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court in Petition No. 2 of 2002 (Uganda Law Society & Jackson Karugaba versus Attorney General).

In this case, the Constitutional Court held that courts or tribunals subordinated to external pressure or public emotion cannot satisfy Article 28 or Article 128.

Awori argues that if the proceedings complained of are permitted to continue, the rule of law, judicial independence and the fair-trial rights of every accused person in Uganda will suffer irreparable harm.

The Attorney General is the respondent in the matter. However, AG is yet to file a reply to the application.

In a telephone interview with New Vision, ULS president Isaac Ssemakadde said they are not trying to frustrate justice, but they want proper procedures followed so that no room for appeal is left for Okello in case he is convicted.

“We are the guardians of the rule of law. So, when we see something wrong, it is incumbent on us to raise it. We are not frustrating this trial, but we want proper procedures observed as laid out under the law,” Ssemakadde said.

Ssemakadde also wondered why the judiciary opted to handle the trial through the mobile court system.

“The Criminal Division of the High Court is just about 12 kilometers away from the crime scene. I am wondering why the judiciary has decided to use the mobile court system that could compromise the trial,” Ssemakadde said.

Ssemakadde said the concept of the mobile courts was meant to serve the people in the hard-to-reach places, like the islands.

Ssemakadde noted that if the judiciary is not careful because of the emotions from the public, it may end up failing on its duty.

“We call upon the judiciary to observe the tenets of a fair trial; otherwise, this trial may not be impartial due to the emotions from the members of the public,” Ssemakadde said.

Mobile courts are formalised under the Constitution (Operation of Mobile Courts) (Practice) Directions, 2026, issued by the Chief Justice Dr Flavian Zeija last month.

The instrument allows magistrates and judges to conduct civil and criminal proceedings outside traditional courtrooms.