John Sanyu Katuramu’s fate had been sealed in 2009 with a verdict that he would be a prisoner for life for the murder of Toro Prince, Charles Happy Kiijanangoma and another man in Fort Portal.

But that changed over the weekend and just as Toro kingdom, where he once served as prime minister, celebrated the 26th coronation anniversary of Oyo Nyimba Kabamba Iguru IV, Katuramu walked out of the Luzira Prison’s gate, to the surprise of many.

During his trial, court in Kampala heard how Katuramu weaved an intricate plot to get rid of Kiijanangoma, who was a thorn in his flesh because he was querying a lot of things that were going wrong in the kingdom.

Earlier, in 1995, Katuramu, the prime minister of Toro, assumed more authority after the king, Patrick David Matthew Kaboyo Olimi III, died under mysterious circumstances and his son, Oyo Nyimba, was crowned king at the age of three.

The day Kijanangoma died, he had a case in the High Court in Fort Portal and in the evening, the Prince, who was known to love the bottle, would be gunned down along with the bar guard identified as Patrick Kaganda. The third victim, Ferri Babara, who was seated with Kijanangoma at the time of the attack, escaped with gunshot wounds.

At the end of the trial, Katuramu and the killers he hired to eliminate Kijanangoma were sentenced to death. The convicts included Katuramu’s nephew, Patrick Kwezi and an army deserter, Alex Twinomugisha, who were also released along with Katuramu on Saturday.

Two other people described as hardcore criminals — Bob Weswala and Jimmy Okumu Rembo, however, were acquitted and the judge then blamed it on a bungled investigation by a Police officer. Weswala would later die in a shoot-out with the Police in yet another incident.

How did Katuramu escape life imprisonment?

In 2009, the Supreme Court refused to abolish the death sentence, but brought parts of it in conformity with the constitution. Hence, the death sentence stopped being mandatory, but the judge would look at the circumstances and decide whether to sentence the convict to death or hand down another sentence.

The Supreme Court also said a condemned prisoner must be hanged within three years of confirmation of his or her sentence by the highest court (Supreme Court). If he or she is not hanged after three years, the sentence commutes to life imprisonment without remission. That ruling also had the effect of amending the provision in the Prisons Act of 1958 concerning remission of sentence in life imprisonment.

Justice Twinomujuni, questioned the 20 years cap on life imprisonment.

“To my understanding,” he said, “this provision has the effect of fettering the discretion of courts to pass a sentence of imprisonment which is greater than 20 years. Suppose during sentencing, the court does not use the term “life imprisonment” and, for example, simply imposes a sentence of 50 years, does this provision confer the discretion on the Prisons authorities to deem 20 years imprisonment as the maximum sentence imposed?

Is this not another attempt by the legislature to pre-determine sentences without hearing the parties in order to determine an appropriate sentence?

Indeed, the Supreme Court would clarify that life imprisonment meant someone’s natural life and there would be no remission.

Then in 2016, Katuramu and 49 others under similar circumstances set about trying to reverse even this. They petitioned the Supreme Court once again, ostensibly to “correct an error” the court made in the Kigula case, which removed remission and said life meant one’s natural life.

But the seven justices on the Coram threw out this petition, as well upholding the Supreme Court’s ruling as follows: For those respondents whose sentences were already confirmed by the highest court, their petitions for mercy under Article 121 of the Constitution must be processed within three years from the date of confirmation of sentence.

Where after three years no decision had been made by the Executive, the death sentence shall be deemed commuted to imprisonment for life without remission.

For those respondents whose sentences arose from the mandatory sentence provisions and are still pending before an appellate court, their cases shall be remitted to the High Court for them to be heard only on mitigations of sentence, and the high Court may pass such sentence as it deems fit under the law.

The justices said the court order mandating commutation of applicants’ sentences to imprisonment for life without remission was not an accidental slip or omission. The justices were also dismayed by what they saw as an attempt by the petitioners to cleverly make them dismiss their own ruling.

“There are circumstances in which the court will exercise its jurisdiction and recall its judgment, that is, only in order to give effect to what clearly would have been its intention had there not been an omission in relation to the particular matter. But this application and the two or three others to which I have referred go far beyond that. It asks, as I have said, this court in the same proceeding to sit on its own previous judgment… In the instant case, we are persuaded that the two orders this court made were deliberate, well intended and were meant to serve independent purposes.”

The above two orders were first made by the Court of Appeal and later slightly modified by the Supreme Court on appeal.

The first order applied to those who were convicted under mandatory death sentences whose convictions had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, while the second order was in respect of those convicted under mandatory death sentences, whose appeals were still pending before the appellate court.

In the first category, the Supreme Court commuted their sentences from death to life imprisonment without remission. In the second order, the convicts were to be remitted to the High Court for mitigation of sentences.

In the same vein, we also find that there was no mistake on the face of the record. It was a manifest intention of the court when it made the first order commuting sentence from death to life imprisonment without remission for convicts whose death sentences had been confirmed by the Supreme Court. This was logical because their cases could not be remitted to the High Court for mitigation.

We would only add that remission would only be available in the circumstances after presidential prerogative of mercy under Article 121 of the Constitution. The application is dismissed, it ruled.

The question remains, was the release of Katuramu recommended by the committee for the prerogative of mercy or was Katuramu a beneficiary of a presidential pardon under the presidential prerogative of mercy powers under which the president can commute a prisoner’s sentence?

What the lawyers say

Lawyers said since the ruling in the Kigula petition, judges have the discretion to etermine the sentence on capital offenders. So, it is no longer a mandatory death sentence.

Also, the committee on prerogative of mercy can recommend to the President to pardon a convict under Article 121 of the Constitution.

Good conduct would be a strong factor for consideration for one to be released under the prerogative of mercy.

According to Johnny Barenzi, another possible circumstance for release of such a convict is when new evidence has been discovered.

“Release can also happen if there is a change of government and the new government considers pardoning the death row prisoners,” he added.