A fisheries patrol officer was abducted and killed after a routine operation against illegal fishing turned violent.
Seven years later, five men convicted over the attack have failed to overturn their convictions, with the Court of Appeal ruling that those who participated in the assault shared responsibility for the crimes committed.
The decision was among several significant judgments delivered by Ugandan courts last week, including a Constitutional court ruling extending legal protection against indecent assault to men, a bribery conviction arising from an investigation into an alleged gold theft, and two decisions involving sexual offences against children.
Five convictions upheld over fisheries patrol killing
The murder case arose from a confrontation at Nyarugugu landing site in Nakivale refugee settlement, Isingiro district, in 2019.
Members of a Beach Management Unit had arrested two refugees suspected of illegal fishing when a mob of approximately 30 people, armed with pangas, sticks, spears and stones, attacked the patrol team.
During the violence, Kaberege Waswa, the area’s defence secretary, was abducted and killed. His body was recovered from the lake the following day. Two other patrol members sustained serious injuries.
Five men were subsequently convicted of murder and two counts of attempted murder.
Four received sentences of 25 years’ imprisonment for murder and 10 years for each attempted murder count. The fifth, who pleaded guilty, received 19 years and six months for murder and 10 years for each attempted murder count.
Four of the convicted men challenged the verdicts, arguing that prosecutors had failed to establish precisely what each had done during the attack.
Their argument raised a central question: must prosecutors prove which individual delivered the fatal blow, or can several people be held responsible for a killing committed during a collective assault?
In a judgment delivered last week, justices Cheborion Barishaki, Oscar John Kihika and Stella Alibateese dismissed the appeals. The judges found that three eyewitnesses had recognized the attackers during the daylight incident because they already knew them.
The court also relied on the doctrine of common intention, under which people acting together in pursuit of a shared criminal purpose can bear responsibility for offences arising from their collective conduct.
Consequently, the prosecution did not have to establish which participant inflicted the fatal injury.
The justices nevertheless rejected the prosecution’s request to increase the murder sentences to 40 years. They considered the existing punishments appropriate and found that the proposed increase would be excessive.
Men gain equal protection against indecent assault
In another consequential ruling, the Constitutional court addressed a longstanding difference in how Uganda’s criminal law protected men and women against sexual misconduct.
The case arose from consolidated constitutional petitions filed by advocates Kalali Steven, Kirya Martins and Aboneka Michael against the Attorney General.
The petitioners challenged provisions of the Penal Code Act that criminalized indecent assault and conduct described as insulting the modesty of a woman or girl, without extending equivalent protection to men.
They argued that the distinction discriminated against male victims. In the lead judgment, justice Cheborion Barishaki agreed that restricting protection against indecent assault to women and girls amounted to discrimination based on sex.
He observed that the Attorney General had acknowledged that men could experience similar forms of abuse.
The court also examined the expression “insulting the modesty” of a woman or girl, finding it too vague to satisfy constitutional requirements that criminal offences be defined clearly.
Rather than invalidate the provisions entirely, the judges ordered modifications to their application.
The words “any woman or girl” in the relevant Penal Code provision were replaced with “any person”, extending its protection to men.
The ruling recognizes that sexual abuse is not confined to one sex and that criminal law must protect victims without unjustified discrimination.
The same petitions also challenged Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which allowed a magistrate receiving a private complaint to consult a local chief, prepare charges, issue summons and subsequently preside over the case.
The court found that allowing a judicial officer to participate in initiating proceedings and later determine the resulting prosecution undermined the right to an impartial hearing.
Under the revised interpretation, private charges must be prepared by complainants, their lawyers or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A magistrate who participates in preliminary consultations cannot subsequently hear the trial. The Attorney General was directed to introduce legislative amendments within 12 months, allowing Parliament to bring the written law into line with the constitutional ruling.
Shs 8m bribe attempt ends in conviction
Elsewhere, an attempt to interfere with a police investigation into an alleged theft of 785 kilogrammes of gold ended with a conviction at the Anti-Corruption court.
Kayiwa Amir admitted offering Shs 8 million to police officers guarding premises belonging to Detail Security Company Ltd in Lubowa, Kajjansi town council, Wakiso district.
The officers had been deployed following a complaint about the alleged disappearance of the gold. Investigators had secured the office of Emmanuel Asimwe, one of the company’s directors, while inquiries continued.
According to the prosecution, Kayiwa approached the officers in August and offered them money to have evidence removed from the secured office. He initially handed over Shs4 million before returning with another Shs4 million.
Police arrested him during the second payment. The money was recovered, and the entire Shs8 million was subsequently presented in court as an exhibit.
His arrest followed a joint operation involving the State House Anti-Corruption Unit, the Criminal Investigations Directorate and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
After pleading guilty to offering gratification, Kayiwa was fined Shs4.8 million, with a three-year prison term to apply if he failed to pay. The Anti-Corruption Unit said the conviction demonstrated the consequences of attempting to obstruct investigations through bribery.
The proceedings concerned Kayiwa’s admitted attempt to influence police officers, rather than a determination of responsibility for the alleged gold theft itself.
Father acquitted despite evidence of abuse
In Kabale, the High court confronted a different question: whether evidence that children had been sexually abused was sufficient to convict the person accused of committing the offences.
Byamukama Milton had faced three counts of aggravated defilement involving his daughters, aged six, five and two. The allegations emerged in 2019 after the eldest child told a school staff member that her father had been sexually abusing her and her younger sisters.
Medical examinations established signs of penetration in the two older girls but found no abnormal findings in the youngest.
The prosecution relied on this evidence and other circumstances to pursue the charges.
However, in a judgment delivered on November 3, 2026, justice Karoli Lwanga Ssemogerere distinguished between proving that an offence had occurred and proving who committed it.
The court found that offences against the two older children had been established, but the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Byamukama was responsible.
The judge criticized investigators for failing to obtain forensic evidence connecting him to the offences. Evidence placing him at the family home was also insufficient to establish guilt.
Byamukama denied the allegations, maintaining that he had been framed because of a land dispute involving his senior wife. Although court assessors recommended conviction, Justice Ssemogerere found reasonable doubt and acquitted him.
He ordered Byamukama’s release unless he was being held on other lawful charges.
The judgment illustrates a fundamental distinction in criminal proceedings: proof that a crime occurred does not automatically establish the guilt of a particular accused person.
Teacher’s sentence reduced to 20 years
In a separate aggravated defilement appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of Muhwezi Milton, a former teacher at God’s Grace Primary School in Ntungamo district, but reduced his prison sentence from 30 to 20 years.
The court heard that Muhwezi began sexually abusing a pupil, who was also his elder sister-in-law, in 2017 when she was approximately 14.
The abuse continued for about three years. During that period, the girl became pregnant twice, and Muhwezi gave her medication to terminate both pregnancies.
The offences came to light after the girl’s grandmother, who owned the school, discovered the abuse following severe bleeding during the second pregnancy.
Muhwezi argued on appeal that he no longer exercised authority over the girl after she left school. The judges rejected that argument, finding that the relationship had begun while she was still his pupil.
They also considered his position as a teacher and his family relationship with the victim, both of which reinforced the authority he exercised over her.
The court nevertheless reviewed the punishment in light of his status as a first-time offender and other personal circumstances. It reduced the sentence to 20 years, leaving 16 years after deducting time spent on remand.
While the conviction remained intact, the reduction reflected the appellate court’s separate assessment of the appropriate punishment.
Across these cases, the courts drew important distinctions: between collective and individual responsibility, between discrimination and equal protection, between allegations and proof, and between upholding a conviction and determining a proportionate sentence.
Their significance extends beyond the people directly involved. The judgments clarify how Uganda’s criminal justice system should protect victims, assess evidence, safeguard impartial hearings and hold offenders accountable within the limits of the law.