The Supreme Court is expected to deliver a ruling that will either uphold or quash the death penalty any time from now.

The struggle started in 2005 when the petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the death penalty.
Upholding the death penalty, the court ruled that it should not be mandatory; in other words court should mete out lighter punishment where discretion calls for it.

Secondly, the court also ruled that it was unconstitutional for the in-mates to stay on death row for more than three years.
While this was a laudable step, the petitioners supported by the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) decided to challenge the court’s decision to declare the death penalty constitutional in the Supreme Court. The latter has now heard the petition and is about to make a ruling.
 
The petition was heard by a panel of seven judges; the Chief Justice, Benjamin Odoki and Justices, John Wilson Tsekooko, Joseph Mulenga, George William Kanyeihamba, Bart Katureebe, Christine Kitumba and Fred Egonda-Ntende.

Government is represented by Ms Angela Kiryabwire-Kanyima while the petitioners are represented by Katende & Ssempebwa Company Advocates, and supported by the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative and the Death Penalty Project UK. 
Government’s position is not a secret––– it wants the death penalty to be upheld–– and in 2003 when human rights organisations urged President Museveni to have the penalty abolished, he out rightly rejected the idea.
 
“I hear some people saying that the death sentence is inhuman. Very sorry. We shall shoot anybody who kills a human being,” Museveni was reported as having said then.
Those who want it abolished, like the FHRI, say it is against the right to life and does not deter people from committing offences that attract the penalty. And in any case, the punishment does not foster the reform process one is supposed to undergo while in prison.

Offences that attract a maximum penalty of death include murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated defilement, treason and terrorism.
Others who oppose the death penalty cite religious considerations which prohibit humans from taking life of others.
Some have cited instances where a court has handed someone a death sentence only to discover in another court that the person was innocent.

Just last month, Kassim Isiko and Madina Nagudi who in 2000 were sentenced to death for aggravated robbery by the High Court in Jinja, were acquitted by the Court of Appeal because the evidence that was submitted against the two was not sufficient to warrant their conviction.

Yet in a country where it is common practice for a mob to lynch a petty thief, there are voices in support of the death penalty.
But some moderates suggest that the death penalty should be applied in cases of aggravated defilement or murder, but deferred in cases such as treason, which can be politically motivated.
Should the Supreme Court abolish the penalty, the decision would rank among the biggest decisions the judiciary ever made since independence.
 
Most probably, the estimated 900 in mates facing death row in Uganda today would have their sentences converted to life in prison.
A decision upholding the status quo, on the other hand, would effectively mark the end of the first part of the struggle for the petitioners and their supporters, sending them back to the drawing board to plot another come-back.
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form