Aurien’s trial raises serious questions
Nov 30, 2010
THE High Court has sentenced the former Mukono Police Commander, James Aurien, to death for the murder of his wife, Christine Apolot, on April 20, 2008.
THE High Court has sentenced the former Mukono Police Commander, James Aurien, to death for the murder of his wife, Christine Apolot, on April 20, 2008.
Aurien nearly got away with the murder when he was first charged. Arguing that the Police had failed to arrest the key witness in the case, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had in July last year dropped the charges against him. This outraged the public and prompted the Inspector General of Police Maj. Gen. Kale Kayihura to order a search for the witness.
The witness — a sister-in-law of Aurien, was subsequently traced in Kampala where she was allegedly hiding on the instructions of a close relative of the convict. Aurien was then charged afresh. In the trial, there was also evidence that there were attempts by a senior police officer to tamper with the evidence to save the neck of his colleague.
While the Police and the DPP are commended for finally ensuring that justice is done, it is important to observe that this trial has raised serious questions about the way the Police and the DPP handle cases. No doubt Aurien would now be a free man had the media and the women rights activists not exerted pressure on these state agencies.
This trial has also raised the issue of safety of witnesses. The key witness in the case was allegedly taken away from her home by a relative of Aurien in order to ensure she does not testify. It is by sheer luck that she was not completely eliminated. Whose fault would it have been? And have the Police done investigations into this serious matter? Was this not an attempt to obstruct the course of justice, which is an offence?
It certainly must be a serious criminal offence for anyone to deliberately tamper with evidence to influence a criminal case. The public expects that action will be taken by the police authorities against anyone who tried to tamper with evidence to save Aurien’s neck.
Aurien nearly got away with the murder when he was first charged. Arguing that the Police had failed to arrest the key witness in the case, the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) had in July last year dropped the charges against him. This outraged the public and prompted the Inspector General of Police Maj. Gen. Kale Kayihura to order a search for the witness.
The witness — a sister-in-law of Aurien, was subsequently traced in Kampala where she was allegedly hiding on the instructions of a close relative of the convict. Aurien was then charged afresh. In the trial, there was also evidence that there were attempts by a senior police officer to tamper with the evidence to save the neck of his colleague.
While the Police and the DPP are commended for finally ensuring that justice is done, it is important to observe that this trial has raised serious questions about the way the Police and the DPP handle cases. No doubt Aurien would now be a free man had the media and the women rights activists not exerted pressure on these state agencies.
This trial has also raised the issue of safety of witnesses. The key witness in the case was allegedly taken away from her home by a relative of Aurien in order to ensure she does not testify. It is by sheer luck that she was not completely eliminated. Whose fault would it have been? And have the Police done investigations into this serious matter? Was this not an attempt to obstruct the course of justice, which is an offence?
It certainly must be a serious criminal offence for anyone to deliberately tamper with evidence to influence a criminal case. The public expects that action will be taken by the police authorities against anyone who tried to tamper with evidence to save Aurien’s neck.