Tables turn on Arvind Patel
Jan 15, 2010
An Indian businessman, Rahuel Patel, alias Bhikhu Patel, was set to be murdered between March and April, 1998, at the Railways Goods’ Shed in Kampala. His murder had been procured by another Indian businessman, Arvind Patel, and his Ugandan accomplice, Andrew Okello.
By Edward AnyoliÂ
AN Indian businessman, Rahuel Patel, alias Bhikhu Patel, was set to be murdered between March and April, 1998, at the Railways Goods’ Shed in Kampala. His murder had been procured by another Indian businessman, Arvind Patel, and his Ugandan accomplice, Andrew Okello.
The problem stemmed from a business rivalry. Arvind and Okello contracted three men, including an army man, Sgt. Frank Nsubuga, to kill Rahuel. The other would be murderers were Richard Jumbo and Andrew Odeke. However, instead of carrying out their gruesome assignment, the three went to the Police and helped lay a trap for the conspirators.
The two were arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder. The hired hitmen then turned State witnesses.
The Police had given the hired hitmen recording machines to capture the conversations of the suspects regarding the conspiracy, which they returned with the required material.
THE TRIAL
On August 21, 1998, when the case came up before the Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate, Asaph Ruhinda, Okello changed his plea, admitting guilt. He had hitherto denied the offence before the Policet. Okello was subsequently convicted and sentenced to six months in jail or a fine of sh500,000. He paid the fine and was freed.
However, Okello died a month later before the trial of his co-accused could begin. Arvind had denied the offence.
When the trial began, Arvind claimed he was being framed by the three witnesses because they had grudges against him. He said at the time they accused him of conspiracy, he was somewhere else. He claimed that the witnesses were victimising him because they owed him money, which they did not want to pay back. He also accused the would be victim of framing him because he had a vendetta against him over the Swaminarayan temple in Kampala.
The trial magistrate, Margaret Tibulya, rejected Arvind’s claims and instead believed the three hired hitmen. She sentenced him to five years in jail, which Arvind appealed.
APPEALS
At the High Court, Arvind’s lawyers complained that three magistrates had handled the case, which he said was illegal. Ruhinda was the Chief Magistrate when the case was brought to the court. It was mentioned before him five times, before Okello changed his plea to admit the case on the day the trial was supposed to start.
However, on October 5, 1998, Arvind accused Ruhinda of being biased against him. Following the accusations, Ruhinda disqualified himself from hearing the case. Another Magistrate, Isingoma took over the case and heard evidence from the first prosecution witness. Then Margaret Tibulya took over the case a month later and conducted it to completion, where Arvind was convicted.
When he went to the Supreme Court, Arvind complained that the lower appellate courts should never have endorsed his trial at the magistrates’ court because three magistrates had handled the case, which contravened the Magistrates’ Court Act.
Arvind, through his lawyers, also complained that the appellate courts were wrong to take into account Okello’s admission of the crime to uphold his (Arvind’s) conviction.
On the trial being handled by several magistrates, section 142 (1) of Magistrates Court Act says, “whenever any magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded whether by virtue of an order of transfer under the provisions of this Act or otherwise, by another magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly by himself, or he may resummon the witnesses and recommence the trial: Provided that, (a)In any trial, the accused may, when the second magistrate commences his proceedings, demand that the witnesses or any of them be resummoned and reheard.
(b) The High Court may, whether there be an appeal or not, set aside any conviction passed on evidence not wholly recorded by the magistrate before whom the conviction was held, if it is of the opinion that the accused has been materially prejudiced thereby and may order a new inquiry or trial.â€
In their ruling, justices A. Oder, A. Karokora, J. Mulenga, G. Kanyeihamba and C. Kato of the Supreme Court said the expression ‘any magistrate’ did not mean only one magistrate, but many magistrates. They said any number of magistrates can hear and record any part of the evidence.
The justices noted that administrative reasons, illness, death or transfer may hinder magistrates who commence trials from completing them.
If only one magistrate had to take over a case, the justices argued, it would bog down trials in magistrates’ courts and worsen the backlog of cases.
They said what mattereed was to ensure that the accused person was not disadvantaged and that it was the reason for the magistrates to recall witnesses or the accused to demand their recalling so that evidence can be taken afresh.
The court also rejected Arvind’s claim that the magistrate relied on Okello’s admission of the crime to convict him (Arvind). They said there were other damning evidences against Arvind. Some of the evidence came from the accounts of Arvind’s accountant, Sgt Nsubuga, Arvind’s driver, Jumba and Odeke.
Thus on October 27, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence. It ordered that Arvind who had been given bail pending the appeal be rearrested and imprisoned.
AN Indian businessman, Rahuel Patel, alias Bhikhu Patel, was set to be murdered between March and April, 1998, at the Railways Goods’ Shed in Kampala. His murder had been procured by another Indian businessman, Arvind Patel, and his Ugandan accomplice, Andrew Okello.
The problem stemmed from a business rivalry. Arvind and Okello contracted three men, including an army man, Sgt. Frank Nsubuga, to kill Rahuel. The other would be murderers were Richard Jumbo and Andrew Odeke. However, instead of carrying out their gruesome assignment, the three went to the Police and helped lay a trap for the conspirators.
The two were arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder. The hired hitmen then turned State witnesses.
The Police had given the hired hitmen recording machines to capture the conversations of the suspects regarding the conspiracy, which they returned with the required material.
THE TRIAL
On August 21, 1998, when the case came up before the Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate, Asaph Ruhinda, Okello changed his plea, admitting guilt. He had hitherto denied the offence before the Policet. Okello was subsequently convicted and sentenced to six months in jail or a fine of sh500,000. He paid the fine and was freed.
However, Okello died a month later before the trial of his co-accused could begin. Arvind had denied the offence.
When the trial began, Arvind claimed he was being framed by the three witnesses because they had grudges against him. He said at the time they accused him of conspiracy, he was somewhere else. He claimed that the witnesses were victimising him because they owed him money, which they did not want to pay back. He also accused the would be victim of framing him because he had a vendetta against him over the Swaminarayan temple in Kampala.
The trial magistrate, Margaret Tibulya, rejected Arvind’s claims and instead believed the three hired hitmen. She sentenced him to five years in jail, which Arvind appealed.
APPEALS
At the High Court, Arvind’s lawyers complained that three magistrates had handled the case, which he said was illegal. Ruhinda was the Chief Magistrate when the case was brought to the court. It was mentioned before him five times, before Okello changed his plea to admit the case on the day the trial was supposed to start.
However, on October 5, 1998, Arvind accused Ruhinda of being biased against him. Following the accusations, Ruhinda disqualified himself from hearing the case. Another Magistrate, Isingoma took over the case and heard evidence from the first prosecution witness. Then Margaret Tibulya took over the case a month later and conducted it to completion, where Arvind was convicted.
When he went to the Supreme Court, Arvind complained that the lower appellate courts should never have endorsed his trial at the magistrates’ court because three magistrates had handled the case, which contravened the Magistrates’ Court Act.
Arvind, through his lawyers, also complained that the appellate courts were wrong to take into account Okello’s admission of the crime to uphold his (Arvind’s) conviction.
On the trial being handled by several magistrates, section 142 (1) of Magistrates Court Act says, “whenever any magistrate, after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in a trial, ceases to exercise jurisdiction therein, and is succeeded whether by virtue of an order of transfer under the provisions of this Act or otherwise, by another magistrate who has and who exercises such jurisdiction, the magistrate so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor, or partly by himself, or he may resummon the witnesses and recommence the trial: Provided that, (a)In any trial, the accused may, when the second magistrate commences his proceedings, demand that the witnesses or any of them be resummoned and reheard.
(b) The High Court may, whether there be an appeal or not, set aside any conviction passed on evidence not wholly recorded by the magistrate before whom the conviction was held, if it is of the opinion that the accused has been materially prejudiced thereby and may order a new inquiry or trial.â€
In their ruling, justices A. Oder, A. Karokora, J. Mulenga, G. Kanyeihamba and C. Kato of the Supreme Court said the expression ‘any magistrate’ did not mean only one magistrate, but many magistrates. They said any number of magistrates can hear and record any part of the evidence.
The justices noted that administrative reasons, illness, death or transfer may hinder magistrates who commence trials from completing them.
If only one magistrate had to take over a case, the justices argued, it would bog down trials in magistrates’ courts and worsen the backlog of cases.
They said what mattereed was to ensure that the accused person was not disadvantaged and that it was the reason for the magistrates to recall witnesses or the accused to demand their recalling so that evidence can be taken afresh.
The court also rejected Arvind’s claim that the magistrate relied on Okello’s admission of the crime to convict him (Arvind). They said there were other damning evidences against Arvind. Some of the evidence came from the accounts of Arvind’s accountant, Sgt Nsubuga, Arvind’s driver, Jumba and Odeke.
Thus on October 27, 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence. It ordered that Arvind who had been given bail pending the appeal be rearrested and imprisoned.