Besigye has case to answer - judge
Jan 26, 2006
The Deputy Inspector General of Police in-charge of the Directorate of CID, Elizabeth Kutesa (EK), re-appeared before the High Court for further cross-examination on the Col. Kizza Besigye rape case before Justice J.B. Katutsi. Besigye is charged with raping Joanita Kyakuwa. Prosecution is led by th
BM: My lord we are appearing as before. The Director of CID is present.
DM: Madam when we were last here, you were being examined about the e-register. Is that correct?
EK: Yes.
DM: Is that the register you referred to?
EK: Yes my lord.
DM: (Passes the register to Katutsi.)
Katutsi: This is D2 (Defence exhibit number two).
DM: Yes my lord. You were also asked about the minutes…are these the minutes?
EK: They are, my lord.
DM: My lord we want to tender this as exhibit.
Katutsi: Anything?
BM: We have no objection.
DM: We have just got exhibit D3. There is something we want to clear from here, kindly look at minute No. 7.
EK: It isn’t here. Seven is not here my lord.
DM: Next page.
EK: I have seen it.
DM: This was written by D/SP Okot?
EK: It was.
DM: She was seeking instructions from you, is that correct?
EK: It is.
DM: She said the case be registered into GEF (General Enquiry File), is that correct?
EK: It is correct my lord.
DM: You can confirm to the court that the GEF is the general inquiry file?
EK: Not necessarily. on specific direction.
DM: What do you mean?
EK: Part of reference.
DM: The purpose of the GEF is for the CID to record investigations that are going on a case that has not been allocated.
EK: No.
BM: (Interrupts the proceedings) My Lord one of the witnesses to the defence is in court. My colleagues had intimated that Madam Winnie (Byanyima, Besigye’s wife) would be presented as a defence witness. Are they no longer calling her?
DM: My lord we are no longer going to call her. The first complaint was made on 28th June 2001?
EK: That is correct.
DM: By this time the case papers had not even been registered anywhere?
EK: It hadn’t.
DM: Could it be correct that for the three years this case was on a file unknown to the GEF?
DEK: It does.
DM: You also confirm that ordinarily the same file number is recorded on the top of the first sheet.
EK: Not necessarily.
DM: Can you confirm that we don’t have the number referring…
EK: There is no number there.
DM: Do you have the file there with you?
EK: It’s this one.
DM: Do you also confirm that the paper you are handling is the index of that Police file?
EK: Yes.
DM: Who prepared the index?
EK: I wouldn’t know, but it is one of the officers.
DM: As the officer in-charge of the investigation did you instruct any officer.
EK: They should be aware of the routine.
DM: Can’t you recognise the number and the handwriting?
EK: No.
DM: Ordinarily it contains the names of persons who make statements.
EK: Yes.
DM: These names are listed in the order of taking statements?
EK: No.
DM: There is an order given in the way the investigating officer files evidence.
EK: She does depending on the relevance.
DM: Then to avoid tampering with evidence the pages are numbered?
EK: They are.
DM: Can you confirm the names of the witnesses who are in the index?
EK: Kyakuwa, Kigongo Moses, Marita Namayanja, and Aisha Nakiguli.
DM: There are four witnesses named?
EK: Those are the ones in the index.
DM: John Musinguzi is not there?
EK: In the index.
DM: James Lwanga is not there?
EK: He isn’t.
DM: You, your statement is not listed in the index?
EK: It isn’t.
DM: Did you also confirm, madam, that there is no number….
EK: It doesn’t have it.
DM: Do you agree that the index is getting out of order?
EK: I have already said that.
DM: Look at the evidence of PW1 Kyakuwa. Confirm to us that there isn’t any document listed as coming before miss Kyakuwa’s statement?
EK: Yah, there isn’t.
DM: The last time you were in court you testified that PW1 has page numbers indicated on each page.
EK: It has.
DM: Do you agree that you would expect the first page of the evidence on page one of the Police file?
EK: The first information…
DM: Can you confirm that Kyakuwa’s evidence, is page 13?
EK: It is, it is written here.
DM: See PW3. Just confirm to us that those minutes are not on 12 pages, it is three papers?
EK: Yes it is three papers.
DM: None of the other statements has numbers?
EK: Yes.
DM: My lord I would like to tender in the evidence of the Index.
BM: No objection my lord.
DM: Look at that book, is that the custody book?
EK: It is my lord.
DM: When was it opened?
EK: The first entry is on 1st June 2004.
DM: Just looking at the entries, is it correct that each folio is divided into eight columns?
EK: They are nine.
DM: Okay nine columns. If you look at the register, you will not find the name of Aisha Nakiguli. Is that correct.
EK: It is true.
DM: Are you aware that Aisha Nakiguli swore an affidavit in relation to a High Court Habeas Corpus made for her.
EK: I do not know the details.
Katutsi: Are you aware of the affidavit?
EK: I don’t have the details.
DM: Are you aware she was arrested or kidnapped on June 7, 2004?
EK: Yes.
DM: Are you aware there were two people entered in the railways station book on June 6, 2004
EK: There are three.
DM: (Reads the names and one of the names appears twice). So it is true there were two.
EK: Ye they were two.
DM: From the statement of the complainant you know Aisha Nakiguli’s names as being hers.
EK: that is correct.
DM: Do you have Namugabi’s statement on the file and what was the date.
EK: June 7, 2004
DM: Is it correct to say that Marita made a statement on June 7, 2004, same date that Aisha was deprived of her liberty?
EK: It is true.
DM: One of the intentions of Marita making a statement was to identify Aisha. Is that so?
EK: It is.
DM: Looking at the register, is it correct that an entry was made for one Namugabi.
EK: As of the names she stood by.
DM: At 4:00pm you had got someone who had identified her and you entered her as Namugabi. Is it is?
EK: She insisted on being identified that way.
DM: You said the statement was made on June 8, 2004.
EK: Yes
DM: There is a column for offence committed.
EK: Yes.
DM: Can you confirm that that person would have committed an offence of safe custody according to the register?
EK: She was taken there for safe custody.
Katutsi: Why don’t you accept that the offence committed and entered was safe custody?
EK: That is the implication.
DM: There is a station diary. What is the number given in reference to that case?
EK: 22/7/06/04
DM: Where does it come from?
EK: From the station.
DM: Can you confirm that the entry before Odia’s (one of the suspects in the book) is 22.
EK: Yes it is.
DM: Why could there have been a gap between 14 of the first Odia and that of 22, which was next.
EK: There could have been other activities.
DM: We pray that the custody book be entered as D5.
DM: It was your evidence that Form 24 must be filled by a person charged with rape. (Passes over a blank form to Kutesa.) Can you look at that form and confirm that it is Form 24.
EK: Yes it.
DM: Confirm that you do not have it on your file.
EK: It is true.
DM: My Lord we pray to tender in the form as D6.
DM: Is it correct that when a person is arrested there is form 94, signed by the officer during the arrest.
EK: It is.
DM: Can you confirm that Form 94 is also not on the file?
EK: It is true there is no such form.
DM: We pray to tender in that form my Lord.
BM: The defence has been talking about irrelevant evidence. I feel they are contaminating the file with those forms.
Katutsi: I do not think they are contaminating the file.
DM: We are tendering in evidence of relevance to our case.
BM: Okay, no objection.
DM: The last time you were here you said you were travelling….
Katutsi: What are you trying to arrive at?
BM: My Lord I think they raised a very serious allegation that the press picked, saying the whole CID director was in the house and had not travelled. I think they should………
Katutsi: I am not taking that because I do not dwell on allegations that are not substantiated.
DM: Confirm that there is no minute of discussion in relation to the chicken business for Aisha.
EK: Yes it is not there but I discussed it with the IGP (Inspector General of Police).
DM: Who is this? Since it was 2004 one would be right to say that it was Katumba Wamala.
EK: Yes but as I said last time security issues are not for public consumption.
DM: How does rape affect national security?
EK: We were discussing rape but other issues that help us to do our work came in.
DM: Are you saying that this case is not about rape but about national security, political?
EK: That is not true. It is about rape.
Re-examination
BM: Just for clarity, you just told the court that you were discussing security matters
EK: Yes my lord.
BM: Were those matters to do with the rape?
JM: (Before Kuteesa could answer, Matovu protests that Byabakama was asking leading questions.) We object to that question. It would lead to a no or yes answer, we don’t want leading questions.
Katutsi: Says that he won’t know unless the question is asked)
JM: By the time the question comes out, it will be too late. I am taking pre-emptive measures.
BM: (Turns to Kuteesa again) It is being implied that this rape case was being discussed as a national security matter. What do you have to say?
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) Why don’t you ask what rape has to do with security issues?
EK: They were asking me if rape was an issue of national security. It was not. They were two distinct issues.
BM: (Asks Kuteesa about the identity of Aisha Nakiguli) Did you ask her to identify herself?
EK: I did.
BM: What names did she give you
EK: Namugabe
BM: When did she give you the Aisha Nakiguli name?
EK: The following day.
BM: What name did you give in the register, the name that you know or the one that the witness had given you?
JM: (Protests again)
BM: Can you tell the court why you closed the file?
EK: The suspect was not around.
BM: Do you close files on that basis?
JM: (Interjects objecting)
BM: (Rephrases questions) In practical terms what would force you to close a file in a case?
EK: Closing a file would sometimes mean staying inquiries.
BM: Do you recall, Madam Director that you were put to task as regards minute 8?
EK: Yes my lord.
BM: What is reservation?
EK: Reservation is a booking.
BM: Under what circumstances does this booking rise?
EK: You can make a reservation or booking to enable you to follow up a matter for investigation.
BM: You also said the suspect was not around, do you know where he was?
EK: Yes.
BM: Where was that?
EK: In South Africa.
BM: Did you have powers to return suspects…?
EK: You can if you had extradition treaties.
JM: (Matovu protests again)
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) Clarify on matters raised in cross-examination.
BM: Point taken. (Turns to Kuteesa) Now these entries in the E-register, who makes them?
EK: Desk officers.
BM: Are those the same as investigating officers?
EK: No.
BM: Do you supervise the manner of recording entries?
EK: No my lord
BM: Ordinarily, how is the first information obtained?
EK: From the details of the complaints received.
BM: From where?
EK: From whoever forwarded the matter to the Police.
BM: Who gave Okot the information?
EK: I gave her the information.
BM: Where did you derive the information you provided Florence Okot?
EK: I had a publication. The confidential.
BM: By this time when you gave this information to Okot had you interviewed the complainant?
EK: No my Lord.
JM: (Protests)
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) They may also ask for a cross-examination on the confidential publication.
BM: Much obliged my Lord. (turns to Kuteesa) I want you to look at the statement of Kyakuwa, DW1. You said it is dated 5th July 2001, when did you first interview her yourself?
EK: I don’t remember.
BM: Was it before or after the statement?
EK: Someone else recorded the statement.
BM: I mean you yourself?
EK: It should be after the statement, I can’t remember.
BM: Look at the that (IFC). The word rape which was written in black and red. Do you see any alterations?
EK: No.
BM: Do you know why the same word was written in blue and then written over with red?
EK: I don’t know why.
BM: As far as the chicken and the house are concerned…(Then rephrases the question after the Judge intervened) is it usual or normal to facilitate a witnesses in a manner Aisha was facilitated?
EK: Yes, it is usual.
Katutsi: It is contempt of court to do that. You can proceed.
BM: My Lord, there is the witness protection programme (then turns to Kuteesa). Were your instructions in writing?
EK: You can’t write all the instructions.
BM: The name Tumusiime appears in the register…Do you utilise officers from other squads. Is it normal to utilise officers from different squads to investigate a case in different squads.
EK: It is normal. Rape does not fall under any squad.
BM: My Lord, I don’t want to raise the temperatures of my learned friends. That is all
Katutsi: Tumusiime comes from the Fraud Squad?
EK: Yes my Lord.
Katutsi: The word rape is written twice, doesn’t it raise any suspicion?
EK: It doesn’t.
Katutsi: I am not happy about it… Okay thanks.
BM: I wish to proclaim that that is the close of the prosecution case.
Katutsi: Thank you. At least you have cooled our temperatures.
Njuba: Our client has been informed of his three options and he has decided to keep silent. The defence will not call any witness. We are ready to submit.
BM: I must say I am taken by surprise. The prosecution has all along been saying that they will call this witness and that witness…I was looking forward to cross-examine the witnesses. (He also says he was expecting that the defence lawyers would enter submissions of no case to answer on behalf of Besigye and allow the court to rule on it)
Katutsi: (Smiling and jokingly says) You put them on tension and expectation and I guess they are paying you back.
Njuba: We don’t want to waste court’s time with submissions of no case to answer. As to whether counsel has been ambushed, it is his business.
BM: I raised a matter of procedure which has been a matter of contention on appeal…
Katutsi: (Tells Njuba that he is procedurally wrong) The court should first state whether there is a case to answer or not then ask your client on his options. But for you, you have just jumped into my shoes. On record of evidence I have, there is a case to answer
He had three options, one is to keep quiet, the other is giving evidence on oath and he would be cross examined by the prosecution or he would give evidence not on oath and he would not be cross-examined.
But here I’m told that he has decided to keep mum and nobody can open his mouth and hereby the defence is closed…
(Katutsi also tells the lawyers to be precise in their submissions. He adjourned the court to Friday when the State will make its submission.)
Ends
DM: Madam when we were last here, you were being examined about the e-register. Is that correct?
EK: Yes.
DM: Is that the register you referred to?
EK: Yes my lord.
DM: (Passes the register to Katutsi.)
Katutsi: This is D2 (Defence exhibit number two).
DM: Yes my lord. You were also asked about the minutes…are these the minutes?
EK: They are, my lord.
DM: My lord we want to tender this as exhibit.
Katutsi: Anything?
BM: We have no objection.
DM: We have just got exhibit D3. There is something we want to clear from here, kindly look at minute No. 7.
EK: It isn’t here. Seven is not here my lord.
DM: Next page.
EK: I have seen it.
DM: This was written by D/SP Okot?
EK: It was.
DM: She was seeking instructions from you, is that correct?
EK: It is.
DM: She said the case be registered into GEF (General Enquiry File), is that correct?
EK: It is correct my lord.
DM: You can confirm to the court that the GEF is the general inquiry file?
EK: Not necessarily. on specific direction.
DM: What do you mean?
EK: Part of reference.
DM: The purpose of the GEF is for the CID to record investigations that are going on a case that has not been allocated.
EK: No.
BM: (Interrupts the proceedings) My Lord one of the witnesses to the defence is in court. My colleagues had intimated that Madam Winnie (Byanyima, Besigye’s wife) would be presented as a defence witness. Are they no longer calling her?
DM: My lord we are no longer going to call her. The first complaint was made on 28th June 2001?
EK: That is correct.
DM: By this time the case papers had not even been registered anywhere?
EK: It hadn’t.
DM: Could it be correct that for the three years this case was on a file unknown to the GEF?
DEK: It does.
DM: You also confirm that ordinarily the same file number is recorded on the top of the first sheet.
EK: Not necessarily.
DM: Can you confirm that we don’t have the number referring…
EK: There is no number there.
DM: Do you have the file there with you?
EK: It’s this one.
DM: Do you also confirm that the paper you are handling is the index of that Police file?
EK: Yes.
DM: Who prepared the index?
EK: I wouldn’t know, but it is one of the officers.
DM: As the officer in-charge of the investigation did you instruct any officer.
EK: They should be aware of the routine.
DM: Can’t you recognise the number and the handwriting?
EK: No.
DM: Ordinarily it contains the names of persons who make statements.
EK: Yes.
DM: These names are listed in the order of taking statements?
EK: No.
DM: There is an order given in the way the investigating officer files evidence.
EK: She does depending on the relevance.
DM: Then to avoid tampering with evidence the pages are numbered?
EK: They are.
DM: Can you confirm the names of the witnesses who are in the index?
EK: Kyakuwa, Kigongo Moses, Marita Namayanja, and Aisha Nakiguli.
DM: There are four witnesses named?
EK: Those are the ones in the index.
DM: John Musinguzi is not there?
EK: In the index.
DM: James Lwanga is not there?
EK: He isn’t.
DM: You, your statement is not listed in the index?
EK: It isn’t.
DM: Did you also confirm, madam, that there is no number….
EK: It doesn’t have it.
DM: Do you agree that the index is getting out of order?
EK: I have already said that.
DM: Look at the evidence of PW1 Kyakuwa. Confirm to us that there isn’t any document listed as coming before miss Kyakuwa’s statement?
EK: Yah, there isn’t.
DM: The last time you were in court you testified that PW1 has page numbers indicated on each page.
EK: It has.
DM: Do you agree that you would expect the first page of the evidence on page one of the Police file?
EK: The first information…
DM: Can you confirm that Kyakuwa’s evidence, is page 13?
EK: It is, it is written here.
DM: See PW3. Just confirm to us that those minutes are not on 12 pages, it is three papers?
EK: Yes it is three papers.
DM: None of the other statements has numbers?
EK: Yes.
DM: My lord I would like to tender in the evidence of the Index.
BM: No objection my lord.
DM: Look at that book, is that the custody book?
EK: It is my lord.
DM: When was it opened?
EK: The first entry is on 1st June 2004.
DM: Just looking at the entries, is it correct that each folio is divided into eight columns?
EK: They are nine.
DM: Okay nine columns. If you look at the register, you will not find the name of Aisha Nakiguli. Is that correct.
EK: It is true.
DM: Are you aware that Aisha Nakiguli swore an affidavit in relation to a High Court Habeas Corpus made for her.
EK: I do not know the details.
Katutsi: Are you aware of the affidavit?
EK: I don’t have the details.
DM: Are you aware she was arrested or kidnapped on June 7, 2004?
EK: Yes.
DM: Are you aware there were two people entered in the railways station book on June 6, 2004
EK: There are three.
DM: (Reads the names and one of the names appears twice). So it is true there were two.
EK: Ye they were two.
DM: From the statement of the complainant you know Aisha Nakiguli’s names as being hers.
EK: that is correct.
DM: Do you have Namugabi’s statement on the file and what was the date.
EK: June 7, 2004
DM: Is it correct to say that Marita made a statement on June 7, 2004, same date that Aisha was deprived of her liberty?
EK: It is true.
DM: One of the intentions of Marita making a statement was to identify Aisha. Is that so?
EK: It is.
DM: Looking at the register, is it correct that an entry was made for one Namugabi.
EK: As of the names she stood by.
DM: At 4:00pm you had got someone who had identified her and you entered her as Namugabi. Is it is?
EK: She insisted on being identified that way.
DM: You said the statement was made on June 8, 2004.
EK: Yes
DM: There is a column for offence committed.
EK: Yes.
DM: Can you confirm that that person would have committed an offence of safe custody according to the register?
EK: She was taken there for safe custody.
Katutsi: Why don’t you accept that the offence committed and entered was safe custody?
EK: That is the implication.
DM: There is a station diary. What is the number given in reference to that case?
EK: 22/7/06/04
DM: Where does it come from?
EK: From the station.
DM: Can you confirm that the entry before Odia’s (one of the suspects in the book) is 22.
EK: Yes it is.
DM: Why could there have been a gap between 14 of the first Odia and that of 22, which was next.
EK: There could have been other activities.
DM: We pray that the custody book be entered as D5.
DM: It was your evidence that Form 24 must be filled by a person charged with rape. (Passes over a blank form to Kutesa.) Can you look at that form and confirm that it is Form 24.
EK: Yes it.
DM: Confirm that you do not have it on your file.
EK: It is true.
DM: My Lord we pray to tender in the form as D6.
DM: Is it correct that when a person is arrested there is form 94, signed by the officer during the arrest.
EK: It is.
DM: Can you confirm that Form 94 is also not on the file?
EK: It is true there is no such form.
DM: We pray to tender in that form my Lord.
BM: The defence has been talking about irrelevant evidence. I feel they are contaminating the file with those forms.
Katutsi: I do not think they are contaminating the file.
DM: We are tendering in evidence of relevance to our case.
BM: Okay, no objection.
DM: The last time you were here you said you were travelling….
Katutsi: What are you trying to arrive at?
BM: My Lord I think they raised a very serious allegation that the press picked, saying the whole CID director was in the house and had not travelled. I think they should………
Katutsi: I am not taking that because I do not dwell on allegations that are not substantiated.
DM: Confirm that there is no minute of discussion in relation to the chicken business for Aisha.
EK: Yes it is not there but I discussed it with the IGP (Inspector General of Police).
DM: Who is this? Since it was 2004 one would be right to say that it was Katumba Wamala.
EK: Yes but as I said last time security issues are not for public consumption.
DM: How does rape affect national security?
EK: We were discussing rape but other issues that help us to do our work came in.
DM: Are you saying that this case is not about rape but about national security, political?
EK: That is not true. It is about rape.
Re-examination
BM: Just for clarity, you just told the court that you were discussing security matters
EK: Yes my lord.
BM: Were those matters to do with the rape?
JM: (Before Kuteesa could answer, Matovu protests that Byabakama was asking leading questions.) We object to that question. It would lead to a no or yes answer, we don’t want leading questions.
Katutsi: Says that he won’t know unless the question is asked)
JM: By the time the question comes out, it will be too late. I am taking pre-emptive measures.
BM: (Turns to Kuteesa again) It is being implied that this rape case was being discussed as a national security matter. What do you have to say?
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) Why don’t you ask what rape has to do with security issues?
EK: They were asking me if rape was an issue of national security. It was not. They were two distinct issues.
BM: (Asks Kuteesa about the identity of Aisha Nakiguli) Did you ask her to identify herself?
EK: I did.
BM: What names did she give you
EK: Namugabe
BM: When did she give you the Aisha Nakiguli name?
EK: The following day.
BM: What name did you give in the register, the name that you know or the one that the witness had given you?
JM: (Protests again)
BM: Can you tell the court why you closed the file?
EK: The suspect was not around.
BM: Do you close files on that basis?
JM: (Interjects objecting)
BM: (Rephrases questions) In practical terms what would force you to close a file in a case?
EK: Closing a file would sometimes mean staying inquiries.
BM: Do you recall, Madam Director that you were put to task as regards minute 8?
EK: Yes my lord.
BM: What is reservation?
EK: Reservation is a booking.
BM: Under what circumstances does this booking rise?
EK: You can make a reservation or booking to enable you to follow up a matter for investigation.
BM: You also said the suspect was not around, do you know where he was?
EK: Yes.
BM: Where was that?
EK: In South Africa.
BM: Did you have powers to return suspects…?
EK: You can if you had extradition treaties.
JM: (Matovu protests again)
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) Clarify on matters raised in cross-examination.
BM: Point taken. (Turns to Kuteesa) Now these entries in the E-register, who makes them?
EK: Desk officers.
BM: Are those the same as investigating officers?
EK: No.
BM: Do you supervise the manner of recording entries?
EK: No my lord
BM: Ordinarily, how is the first information obtained?
EK: From the details of the complaints received.
BM: From where?
EK: From whoever forwarded the matter to the Police.
BM: Who gave Okot the information?
EK: I gave her the information.
BM: Where did you derive the information you provided Florence Okot?
EK: I had a publication. The confidential.
BM: By this time when you gave this information to Okot had you interviewed the complainant?
EK: No my Lord.
JM: (Protests)
Katutsi: (To Byabakama) They may also ask for a cross-examination on the confidential publication.
BM: Much obliged my Lord. (turns to Kuteesa) I want you to look at the statement of Kyakuwa, DW1. You said it is dated 5th July 2001, when did you first interview her yourself?
EK: I don’t remember.
BM: Was it before or after the statement?
EK: Someone else recorded the statement.
BM: I mean you yourself?
EK: It should be after the statement, I can’t remember.
BM: Look at the that (IFC). The word rape which was written in black and red. Do you see any alterations?
EK: No.
BM: Do you know why the same word was written in blue and then written over with red?
EK: I don’t know why.
BM: As far as the chicken and the house are concerned…(Then rephrases the question after the Judge intervened) is it usual or normal to facilitate a witnesses in a manner Aisha was facilitated?
EK: Yes, it is usual.
Katutsi: It is contempt of court to do that. You can proceed.
BM: My Lord, there is the witness protection programme (then turns to Kuteesa). Were your instructions in writing?
EK: You can’t write all the instructions.
BM: The name Tumusiime appears in the register…Do you utilise officers from other squads. Is it normal to utilise officers from different squads to investigate a case in different squads.
EK: It is normal. Rape does not fall under any squad.
BM: My Lord, I don’t want to raise the temperatures of my learned friends. That is all
Katutsi: Tumusiime comes from the Fraud Squad?
EK: Yes my Lord.
Katutsi: The word rape is written twice, doesn’t it raise any suspicion?
EK: It doesn’t.
Katutsi: I am not happy about it… Okay thanks.
BM: I wish to proclaim that that is the close of the prosecution case.
Katutsi: Thank you. At least you have cooled our temperatures.
Njuba: Our client has been informed of his three options and he has decided to keep silent. The defence will not call any witness. We are ready to submit.
BM: I must say I am taken by surprise. The prosecution has all along been saying that they will call this witness and that witness…I was looking forward to cross-examine the witnesses. (He also says he was expecting that the defence lawyers would enter submissions of no case to answer on behalf of Besigye and allow the court to rule on it)
Katutsi: (Smiling and jokingly says) You put them on tension and expectation and I guess they are paying you back.
Njuba: We don’t want to waste court’s time with submissions of no case to answer. As to whether counsel has been ambushed, it is his business.
BM: I raised a matter of procedure which has been a matter of contention on appeal…
Katutsi: (Tells Njuba that he is procedurally wrong) The court should first state whether there is a case to answer or not then ask your client on his options. But for you, you have just jumped into my shoes. On record of evidence I have, there is a case to answer
He had three options, one is to keep quiet, the other is giving evidence on oath and he would be cross examined by the prosecution or he would give evidence not on oath and he would not be cross-examined.
But here I’m told that he has decided to keep mum and nobody can open his mouth and hereby the defence is closed…
(Katutsi also tells the lawyers to be precise in their submissions. He adjourned the court to Friday when the State will make its submission.)
Ends