News
Okello raises three grounds in Ggaba daycare murder appeal
Okello contends that High Court judge Alice Komuhangi Khaukha erred in law and fact when she allegedly failed to properly evaluate the evidence before arriving at a wrong conclusion and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
Ggaba daycare gruesome murder convict Christopher Onyum Okello. (File photo)
By: Barbra Kabahumuza and Farooq Kasule, Journalists @New Vision
_________________
Ggaba daycare gruesome murder convict Christopher Onyum Okello has raised three grounds of appeal in his bid to have his conviction and the death sentence imposed on him by the High Court set aside by the Court of Appeal.
The grounds are contained in the memorandum of appeal, which he lodged at the Court of Appeal registry through the Uganda Law Society (ULS) Legal Aid Project on June 12.
Okello contends that High Court judge Alice Komuhangi Khaukha erred in law and fact when she allegedly failed to properly evaluate the evidence before arriving at a wrong conclusion and occasioned a miscarriage of justice.
In his second ground of appeal, Okello argues that the trial judge erred in law and fact when she allegedly did not evaluate the medical evidence regarding his mental status, thereby arriving at a wrong decision.
In the third ground, Okello argues that the trial judge erred in law and fact when she allegedly imposed a harsh and excessive sentence of death on him. He wants the sentence imposed on him either set aside or varied.
On April 30 this year, Justice Khaukha condemned the 39-year-old Okello to death after finding him guilty of deliberately and intentionally killing four defenceless infants at the Ggaba Early Childhood Development Centre on April 2.
The victims are: Ryan Odeke (1.5 years), Keisha Agenorwoth Otim (2 years), Gideon Eteku (2.5 years) and Ignatius Sseruyange (2.5 years).
While Okello had raised the defence of insanity, the judge, drawing from his conduct before, during and after the incident that involved procuring knives, hiring a car, making transactions on his bank account and mobile money, among others, rejected his defence of insanity.
The judge said the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly showed that Okello acted with intent while committing the offences.
In the third ground, Okello argues that the trial judge erred in law and fact when she allegedly imposed a harsh and excessive sentence of death on him. He wants the sentence imposed on him either set aside or varied.
On April 30 this year, Justice Khaukha condemned the 39-year-old Okello to death after finding him guilty of deliberately and intentionally killing four defenceless infants at the Ggaba Early Childhood Development Centre on April 2.
The victims are: Ryan Odeke (1.5 years), Keisha Agenorwoth Otim (2 years), Gideon Eteku (2.5 years) and Ignatius Sseruyange (2.5 years).
While Okello had raised the defence of insanity, the judge, drawing from his conduct before, during and after the incident that involved procuring knives, hiring a car, making transactions on his bank account and mobile money, among others, rejected his defence of insanity.
The judge said the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly showed that Okello acted with intent while committing the offences.
The judge said when Okello chose to rely on the defence of insanity, the burden was shifted on him to prove that he was suffering from mental illness at the time of committing the offences, which he never did.
“In the absence of any medical report and if it is true that he was suffering from the disease of the mind, his parents would have come and testified in court, but they never came to testify, and even the accused never listed them among his witnesses,” the judge noted.
Finding Okello to have been mentally stable at the time of committing the offences, Justice Khauka relied on the evidence of Dr Emmanuel Nuwamanya, a police surgeon, who told court that he appeared normal when he interacted with him and that his speech was not only normal and coherent but he was generally calm during his interview with him.
The judge said even if it was true that Okello had ever been admitted at Butabika, it had no impact on the case.
The judge said the only disease, which Okello is suffering from is sickle cell, which she observed that the doctors said it is only a risk factor for mental illnesses.
After evaluating the evidence, the judge said the defence of diminished responsibility, a partial defence to murder that reduces a conviction to voluntary manslaughter, was also not available to Okello.
Citing the evidence of Dr Abdul Katongole, who carried the postmortems on the dead bodies, which indicated that the four toddlers succumbed to hypovolemic shock (massive blood loss) resulting from deep cut wounds on their necks, the evidence of Phoebe Namutebi, a caretaker at the school who witnessed the incident, testimonies from their respective parents, Justice Khauka ruled that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the four toddlers died after having been unlawfully stabbed by the convict.
“I am in agreement with the assessors that the prosecution proved that the four are dead,” Justice Khauka noted.
In regard to participation, the judge cited the CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) camera footage, the evidence of Namutebi and Annet Odong, the school co-ordinator who had just interacted with Okello before gruesomely killing the children, and noted that Okello’s participation was not contested because he never denied killing the children.
“Whereas the defence counsel said the videos were not clear, he (Okello) was seen when he parked at renewal SACCO (Savings and Credit Cooperative organisation) on April 2, which is behind the school. In the footage of April 2, 2026, he could be easily identified because he was putting on a checkered shirt and sun-glasses. It is corroborated by the evidence of the crime scene officer. The DNA analysis reveals that the cuttings from his shirt matches the DNA on Otim (one of the deceased toddlers). In light of the above and in agreement with the assessors, it is my finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the four children,” Khauka ruled.
While prosecution never produced in court Silas Bukenya and Moses Opio, who apprehended Okello, the judge ruled that this did not affect the prosecution's case since the accused was apprehended in the act of slaughtering the children.
In regard to malice aforethought, the judge said from his conduct before, during and after the incident, it was clear that Okello intentionally killed the children and, therefore, malice aforethought was proved by the prosecution given that he never explained the circumstances behind his actions.
The law
Under the law, all death sentences passed by the High Court must be confirmed by the Supreme Court before they are executed.
Thus, if a death row inmate does not appeal, the law requires that the Supreme Court still reviews the case for confirmation within 30 days of the conviction.
The Supreme Court may confirm the sentence, or it may overturn it or impose a lesser sentence, such as life imprisonment.
Once the Supreme Court justices confirm the death sentence, it is passed to the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy to advise the President, who is mandated under the law to sign the death warrants.
If a death sentence is not executed within three years of confirmation by the Supreme Court, it is commuted to imprisonment for life.
When contacted, James Ereemye Mawanda, the judiciary spokesperson, said preparations for the hearing of the appeal are underway.
“We shall update you when the matter has been fixed for hearing. So, the public should remain calm and patient,” Mawanda said.
“In the absence of any medical report and if it is true that he was suffering from the disease of the mind, his parents would have come and testified in court, but they never came to testify, and even the accused never listed them among his witnesses,” the judge noted.
Finding Okello to have been mentally stable at the time of committing the offences, Justice Khauka relied on the evidence of Dr Emmanuel Nuwamanya, a police surgeon, who told court that he appeared normal when he interacted with him and that his speech was not only normal and coherent but he was generally calm during his interview with him.
The judge said even if it was true that Okello had ever been admitted at Butabika, it had no impact on the case.
The judge said the only disease, which Okello is suffering from is sickle cell, which she observed that the doctors said it is only a risk factor for mental illnesses.
After evaluating the evidence, the judge said the defence of diminished responsibility, a partial defence to murder that reduces a conviction to voluntary manslaughter, was also not available to Okello.
Citing the evidence of Dr Abdul Katongole, who carried the postmortems on the dead bodies, which indicated that the four toddlers succumbed to hypovolemic shock (massive blood loss) resulting from deep cut wounds on their necks, the evidence of Phoebe Namutebi, a caretaker at the school who witnessed the incident, testimonies from their respective parents, Justice Khauka ruled that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the four toddlers died after having been unlawfully stabbed by the convict.
“I am in agreement with the assessors that the prosecution proved that the four are dead,” Justice Khauka noted.
In regard to participation, the judge cited the CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) camera footage, the evidence of Namutebi and Annet Odong, the school co-ordinator who had just interacted with Okello before gruesomely killing the children, and noted that Okello’s participation was not contested because he never denied killing the children.
“Whereas the defence counsel said the videos were not clear, he (Okello) was seen when he parked at renewal SACCO (Savings and Credit Cooperative organisation) on April 2, which is behind the school. In the footage of April 2, 2026, he could be easily identified because he was putting on a checkered shirt and sun-glasses. It is corroborated by the evidence of the crime scene officer. The DNA analysis reveals that the cuttings from his shirt matches the DNA on Otim (one of the deceased toddlers). In light of the above and in agreement with the assessors, it is my finding that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death of the four children,” Khauka ruled.
While prosecution never produced in court Silas Bukenya and Moses Opio, who apprehended Okello, the judge ruled that this did not affect the prosecution's case since the accused was apprehended in the act of slaughtering the children.
In regard to malice aforethought, the judge said from his conduct before, during and after the incident, it was clear that Okello intentionally killed the children and, therefore, malice aforethought was proved by the prosecution given that he never explained the circumstances behind his actions.
The law
Under the law, all death sentences passed by the High Court must be confirmed by the Supreme Court before they are executed.
Thus, if a death row inmate does not appeal, the law requires that the Supreme Court still reviews the case for confirmation within 30 days of the conviction.
The Supreme Court may confirm the sentence, or it may overturn it or impose a lesser sentence, such as life imprisonment.
Once the Supreme Court justices confirm the death sentence, it is passed to the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy to advise the President, who is mandated under the law to sign the death warrants.
If a death sentence is not executed within three years of confirmation by the Supreme Court, it is commuted to imprisonment for life.
When contacted, James Ereemye Mawanda, the judiciary spokesperson, said preparations for the hearing of the appeal are underway.
“We shall update you when the matter has been fixed for hearing. So, the public should remain calm and patient,” Mawanda said.