Revisit Umar Kateregga, Mariam Nabukeera case

By Johnny P. Barenzi

GODREY Kato Kajubi was convicted of the murder of 12-year old Joseph Kasirye after initially being acquitted following a submission of a no case to answer.

Dissatisfied with the earlier High Court ruling, the state petitioned the Court of Appeal which ordered for a re-trial where it was proven that on or about 27th October, 2008 at Kayugi village in Masaka District, Kajubi, with others still at large, murdered the deceased.

At the time, Kasirye was living with his grandparents next door to a couple, Umar Kateregga and Mariam Nabukeera, who later became principle state witnesses despite evidence that they are accomplices, thereby equally culpable.

When brought to court, the couple disowned statements they initially made to the Police. 

In their statements, they had claimed Kajubi had promised Kateregga sh15m if Kateregga procured a human head, genitals, and blood to be used in a ritual. Kateregga and his wife, who were practicing witchdoctors, denied their statements claiming they were never given an opportunity to proof-read them before signing. 

The contentious statements notwithstanding, the state led evidence to prove that Kajubi committed the callous crime when he hired the couple for their input in the ritual.

Kateregga, who allegedly took the deceased from his parent’s home, denied physical participation in the murder, contrary to statements he recorded with the Police at the time of his arrest.

His Lordship Justice Mike Chibita, found a conspiracy to exist between Kajubi and the couple in the circumstances that led to the murder of Kasirye.

There are simply too many coincidences surrounding the death of Kasirye to extricate the duo from participating and or conniving in the act. 

It is, therefore, disturbing that the state imprudently decided not to take the duo to trial over murder charges and only charged Kajubi.

When the circumstances are taken into consideration, it can reasonably be deduced that the couple is equally culpable of the crime or become accessories to the fact. 

It was, therefore, unwise for the state not to prosecute them on the basis of disownment of their own incriminating statements. 

It would be sensible if the state preferred charges against the duo and determined the authenticity of their statements by subjecting them to a trial within a trial.

Is it plausible to speculate that the state could not discharge its burden against this couple and lead evidence to prove the necessary ingredients of murder?

Which are: – The fact of death; Death was unnatural and unlawful; There was malice aforethought and that the accused participated in the offence.

The first two ingredients are self-evident - the recovery of Kasirye’s body.

The autopsy proved the fact of death and that the death was unlawful. The question is whether there was malice aforethought and whether the accomplices participated in the murder.

Paul Kasirye, the deceased boy’s uncle, testified that prior to the tragic events, Kateregga had made contact with the boy at his grandfather’s home. Kateregga himself admitted under oath that he lured the boy from his home ostensibly to work on Kajubi’s poultry farm.

There is evidence supported by phone records that Kajubi and Kateregga knew each other and had spoken several times prior to the murder.

These circumstances establish a web of conspiracy between Kajubi, Kateregga and Nabukeera to commit the crime. This satisfies the ingredient of malice aforethought. Joseph Mugwanya, the deceased’s father, testifi ed that while at Masaka Police Station he heard Umar Kateregga say “….I am the one who killed the boy with Kato Kajubi.”

It’s a fact the murder was committed in Kateregga’s house in the presence of the Kajubi. His wife, Nabukeera claimed she did not witness the murder since she was forced out of the room prior to the murder, contrary to statements by her husband, Kateregga, who stated in detail that he personally cut off Kasirye’s head while his wife was holding the legs.

It would have been prudent to subject the trio to a criminal trial and cross examine the duo on the veracity of their statements given that the conduct of the duo after the murder is indicative of their guilt.

The writer is a partner Barenzi and Company Advocates