BRIEF FACTS – Uganda v.

Musere Luwis & Another

CRB 400/2024 – Jinja Police Station

On the night of 10th October 2024 at around 2:00am, unknown assailants

attacked the home of Katono Gosipa and her husband, Galubaale Wanda,
in Wanyange Village, Bugembe Parish, Mafubira Sub- County, Jinja
District. The assailants locked the complainant inside the house and
hacked her husband with machetes and other objects, leaving him
critically injured.

The deceased, while being attacked, was heard by his wife calling out
names of the assailants, including one known as “Badnews.” The
complainant positively identified one suspect, Wagaba, through
moonlight visibility and later during a police identification parade. She also
recognized the voice of Badnews, a known local boda-boda rider.

Bogere Napoleon, a neighbor, responded to the alarm and observed a gang

of armed men fleeing the scene through a nearby plantation. He identified
Wagaba, described as bald-headed, and overheard them praising a
person referred to as “Badnews” for the act. Bogere further revealed that
the deceased had an existing conflict with one Musere Luwis over a
woman, and the deceased had earlier expressed fear for his life.

An ID card of Wagaba was recovered from the scene and exhibited by

police. The victim was hospitalized in critical condition at Jinja Hospital and
later died on 3rd March 2025 due to deep cut wounds, as confirmed by
postmortem examination.

Following investigations, Wagaba Bosico and Musere Luwis were

arrested in Kampala and Masaka respectively. Both suspects denied
involvement. Medical examinations confirmed they were of sound mental
status and had no significant injuries.

Postmortem and photographic evidence were collected. The investigation

links the suspects to the offense through eyewitness accounts, voice
recognition, ID recovery, and motive from prior disputes.

ISSUES.

1. What are the possible offences disclosed by the facts?

2. Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the offences?
Whether there are areas of further investigation?
3. What is the forumn, procedure and the necessary documents?
 4. What is the procedure can a Chief Magistrate take to commit the
accused by way of role play, have the accused persons committed to
high court for trial?
5. Whether the accused in Kirinya Government prison can apply for
Bail?
6. What is the forum, procedure and the necessary documents?
7. What is the necessary document for the state Attorney to file in reply
of the documents above?
8. What practical steps can the Deputy Registrar of the Highcourt would
take to successfully arrange a criminal session?

LAW APPLICABLE.

1. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995.

2. The Judicature Act, Cap.16
3. The Penal Code Act, Cap 128.
4. The Trial on Indictments Act, Cap.25.
5. The Criminal Procedure Code Act, Cap 122.
6. The Evidence Act, Cap 8.

RESOLUTION.

ISSUE 1: What are the possible offences disclosed by the facts?

Section 1 of Penal Code Act, Cap128 defines an offence as an act, attempt

or omission punishable by law.

Article 28(3)a provides for presumption of innocence that a person is

presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 28(7) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 (As
amended) provides for the principle of legality and it clearly states that no
person shall be charged with or convicted of a criminal offence which is
founded on an act or omission that did not at the time it took place
constitute a criminal offence.
Furthermore, the very Constitution gives an exception to the principle of
legality under Article 28(12) which states that except for contempt of
Court, no person shall be convicted of a criminal offence unless the offence
is defined and the penalty for it prescribed under the law.
From the facts the following are the possible offences;

Possible Offences:

1. Murder C/S Section 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128):

The Ingredients of Murder were laid down in the case of Uganda v

Ssebuwufu Mohamed and 7 Ors Crim. Sess. No.493 of 2015 to include
the following;

1. Death of a person occurred.

2. The death was caused unlawfully.
3. The accused had malice aforethought.
4. Participation of the accused.
5. Where there is more than one accused person, it ought to
be proved that there was a common intention among
them to execute an unlawful purpose.

ISSUE 2: Whether the evidence is sufficient to support the offences?

Burden of proof.

Under Sect 101(1) of the Evidence Act, Cap 8 states that whoever desires
any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on
the existence of facts, which he or she asserts must prove that those facts
exist.

Subsection 2 thereof states that when a person is bound to prove the

existence of any fact, it is said that the burden lies on that person.

Standard of Proof.

In Woolmington Vs DPP (1935) AC 462, court held that the burden to

prove a charge against an accused person lies on the prosecution and the
prosecution must prove all the ingredients of the offence beyond
reasonable doubt.

In the Supreme Court case of Ojepan Ignatius Vs Uganda (SCCA NO. 25

OF 1995), court held that onus to prove a certain fact in criminal cases is
always on the prosecution except in a few statutory offenses, when it shifts
to the accused and it is on the balance of probabilities.

Therefore, from the police file CRB 400/2024 the following evidence
supports the offence of Murder as shown below.

1. Death of a Human Being Occurred

Legal Principle: In Uganda v Uwera Nsenga Crim. Sess. No. 312 of 2013,
the court emphasized that proof of death of a human being must be
established and that such death must have occurred within a year and a
day from the act that caused it.

Application to Facts:

 The post-mortem report confirms the death of the deceased.

 A statement by Nasenya Consolata, the deceased’s wife,
corroborates the occurrence of death.

Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to prove this ingredient beyond

reasonable doubt.

2. The Death Was Caused Unlawfully

Legal Principle: In Uganda v Okello (1992-1993) HCB 68, it was held

that every homicide is presumed to be unlawful unless shown to be
excusable or justifiable (e.g., self-defence, accident, or lawful execution).

 Witness statements and forensic evidence confirm that the

deceased was assaulted with a weapon and sustained fatal injuries.
 There is no evidence suggesting lawful justification (e.g., self-
defence or provocation).

Therefore, the evidence is enough to prove that the death was caused
unlawfully.

3. Malice Aforethought
Sect 174 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128 defines Malice a forethought as

“an intention to cause the death of any person, whether such person is the
person actually killed or not, or knowledge that the act or omission will
probably cause death.”

In Ogwang v Uganda (1999) EACA 63, the court stated that malice
aforethought may be inferred from the nature of the weapon used, the
part of the body targeted, and previous threats or animosity.

Application to Facts:

 Witnesses state that the accused had threatened the deceased

before the incident.
 The use of a lethal weapon and the targeting of vital body parts
shows intent to kill or cause grievous harm.

Therefore, there is enough evidence to prove the element of malice

aforethought.

4. Participation of the Accused

In Abdalla Nabulere & Another v Uganda Cr. App. No. 9 of 1978, the
court held that for identification to be relied upon, conditions such as
light, proximity, and duration of observation must be considered.

Application to Facts:

 Eye-witnesses place the accused at the scene.

 There was sufficient moonlight, close distance, and the ability to
hear the altercation, enhancing the reliability of identification.
 Forensic evidence links the accused to the murder weapon.
 The deceased made a dying declaration implicating the accused.

There is enough evidence to prove the Participation of the accused.

5. Common Intention Among Accused Persons

Under Section 20 of the Penal Code Act, persons acting with a common
intention to execute an unlawful purpose are all liable as if they had
committed the offence individually.
In R v Tabulayenka s/o Kirya and Others (1943) 10 EACA 51, the court
held that common intention can be inferred from the conduct of the
accused before, during, and after the offence.

Application to Facts:

 Witness statements suggest conspiracy and planning among the

accused.
 Evidence of prior meetings, shared motive, and coordinated
action on the material night strongly indicate common intention.

Conclusion: Common intention among the accused persons is established.

Final Conclusion:

Based on the facts from CRB 400/2024 – Jinja Police Station and relevant
laws and judicial precedents, all the ingredients of murder can be
satisfactorily proved. The prosecution has sufficient evidence to sustain
the charge of murder under Section 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act.

Whether there are areas of further investigation?

Article 120(3)a of the 1995 Constitution the DPP has powers to direct on
areas of further investigation.

1.Detailed Forensic and Medical Evidence

Why Important: Forensic evidence is crucial in linking the accused to the

weapon, the scene, and confirming the cause of death.

Additional Information Needed:

 Full post-mortem report including time of death, type of injuries,

and weapon characteristics.
 DNA or fingerprint evidence on the weapon and other items at the
scene.
 A forensic pathologist’s statement confirming that the injuries were
consistent with the alleged attack.

2. Clarity and Consistency of Eye-Witness Testimonies

Why Important: Identification and eyewitness testimony are often

challenged on grounds of mistaken identity.
Additional Information Needed:

 Detailed recorded statements of each eyewitness, especially

regarding:
o Time and duration of observation.
o Proximity to the scene.
o Lighting conditions.
o Prior knowledge or familiarity with the accused.
 Clarify any discrepancies or contradictions in witness accounts.

3. Communication Records and Planning Evidence (Common

Intention)

Why Important: To firmly establish common intention, it is necessary to

prove prior planning or coordination.

Additional Information Needed:

 Phone call records, text messages, or social media chats showing

communication between the accused before or after the incident.
 Evidence of meetings, such as statements from third-party witnesses
or surveillance footage.
 Motive alignment, e.g., a shared grievance or benefit from the
deceased’s death.

4. Dying Declaration: Content and Circumstances

Why Important: A dying declaration is admissible under Ugandan law but

must meet standards of reliability.

Additional Information Needed:

 Exact words of the deceased as recorded by the recipient (doctor,

relative, or police).
 Circumstances under which the statement was made:
o Was the deceased aware of impending death?
o Was the statement made voluntarily and coherently?
 Corroboration from other evidence (e.g., consistency with forensic
findings or witness accounts).

5. Background and Motive

Why Important: Motive is not an essential element of murder but provides

context and supports malice aforethought and common intention.
Additional Information Needed:

 History of conflict or disputes between the deceased and the

accused (business, domestic, land, etc.).
 Statements from neighbours, family, or community leaders on
prior threats, enmity, or grievances.
 Any police reports or complaints previously made between parties.

ISSUE 3: What is the forumn, procedure and the necessary

documents?

Forum.

The High court of Uganda. Article 139 of the Constitution which provides
for unlimited original Jurisdiction of the High Court. Murder is a capital
offence.

Procedure.

Sect 161 (1) a of the Magistrates Court Act provides that a chief
Magistrate has power to try any Offence other than that whose maximum
sentence is dearth.

Sect 2 of the Trial on Indictment Act Cap 25 Provides that the High Court
exercises its jurisdiction in trying offences however the person must have
been committed to trial to the High Court by the Chief Magistrate.

Sect 168 of the Magistrate Court Act Cap 19 provides that when a person
charged with an offence to be tried by High Court appears before the
Magistrate Court and the DPP has drafted an Indictment and a summary of
the case, the Magistrate shall

Give the accused a copy of the indictment together with a summary of the
case

Inquire from the accused the Language they understand

Read out the indictment and the summary of the case and explain to the
accused the nature of the accusation against him or her in a language he or
she understands.
Inform the accused that they are not required to plead to the indictment at
this stage.

Commit the accused person for trial by the High Court.

And transmit to the registrar of the High Court Copies of the Indictment
and of the summary of the case.

In Barihahi Grace Peter and Fred Biryomumaiso v Attorney General

Const. Pet. No.23 of 2011. The petitioners alleged that Sect 2 of the Trial
on Indictment Act as it is now is unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with
Article 28(1) of the Constitution which provide for a speedy trail and it
also contravened Article 139 of the Constitution which provides for
unlimited original Jurisdiction of the High Court.

Egonda- Ntende stated that Sect 2 is a pre-trial procedural for it merely

sets down the practice of approaching the court for purposes of trial in
criminal matters. Secondly Committal Proceedings enable the accused
person to prepare his defence by way of pre -trial disclosure.

Necessary Documents.

Summary of the case

Indictment.

(a) SUMMARY OF THE CASE.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT JINJA
CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO. .......... OF 2025

UGANDA........................................................................................................PROSEC
UTOR
Versus
MUSERE LUWIS........................................................................................ACCUSED
1
OKELLO JACOB.......................................................................................ACCUSED 2
AND OTHERS..........................................................................................STILL AT
LARGE
 SUMMARY OF THE CASE

(Murder Contrary to Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap
128):

The Director of Public Prosecutions shall adduce evidence before the High
Court to prove the following facts:

1. That on the 14th day of February 2024, at around 2:30 a.m., the
deceased, Waiswa Kato, was violently attacked at his home in
Buwenge Town Council, Jinja District. He suffered multiple stab
wounds and blunt trauma to the head and chest, leading to his death
shortly after the incident.
2. That the deceased’s wife, Nandudu Sarah, was present during the
attack and recognized the first accused, Musere Luwis, by voice as
he issued threats and instructions during the assault. She later
identified the second accused, Okello Jacob, from a police lineup
based on his distinctive height and build. Another neighbour,
Wamala Tom, observed the accused persons fleeing the scene under
moonlight and reported hearing the deceased utter, “Musere, why are
you killing me?”
3. That there existed a prior land ownership dispute between the
deceased and Musere Luwis, during which the deceased had reported
threats to local authorities. This points to a premeditated motive. The
suspects went into hiding following the incident but were later
arrested through coordinated police efforts.
4. That forensic evidence, including a post-mortem report,
confirmed the cause of death as penetrating trauma from a sharp
object and severe internal bleeding. Fingerprint analysis linked the
accused to a blood-stained panga recovered at the scene.
5. That Musere Luwis denies involvement, claiming to have been at a
trading center several kilometers away at the time of the incident.
However, multiple witness statements and mobile phone geo-
location evidence place him near the crime scene. Okello Jacob
offered no formal alibi.
6. That the Prosecution shall rely on the following exhibits:
o Eyewitness accounts (including dying declaration)
 Medical and forensic reports
o
o Post-mortem report
o Weapon recovered
o Any other document admitted with leave of court.
7. That the Prosecution shall assert that there is sufficient
evidence against the accused to establish all the ingredients of the
offence and shall pray that the Honourable Court finds the accused
guilty as charged.

DATED at JINJA this 22nd day of APRIL, 2025

...............................................
RESIDENT STATE ATTORNEY

FOR: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

................................................

(b) INDICTMENT.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA
CRIMINAL SESSION CASE NO.................. OF 2025
(Sect. 23, 27 and 28 of the Trial and Indictment Act Cap 25.)

COURT CASE NO...........

POLICE CASE NO: CRB 400/2024 – JINJA POLICE STATION
DPP CASE NO: ...............

At the session of the High Court Holden at Jinja, the Court is informed by
the Director of Public Prosecutions that:

MUSERE LUWIS and OKELLO JACOB

Are charged with the following offence:

STATEMENT OF OFFENCE

Murder Contrary to Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act, Cap
128.

PARTICULARS OF THE OFFENCE

MUSERE LUWIS and OKELLO JACOB, on the 14th day of February 2024, at
Buwenge Town Council, in Jinja District, with malice aforethought,
unlawfully caused the death of Waiswa Kato.

DATED at JINJA this 20th day of January, 2025.

..........................................................
RESIDENT STATE ATTORNEY
JINJA
FOR: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

....................................................

NOTICE TO THE ACCUSED PERSONS

TO: MUSERE LUWIS and OKELLO JACOB

Take notice that you will be tried on the above Indictment at the session of
the High Court to be held at Jinja on the .................. day of April 2025 at 9:00
a.m., or so soon thereafter as the case can be heard.

.....................................................
REGISTRAR

ISSUE 4: What is the procedure can a Chief Magistrate take to commit

the accused by way of role play, have the accused persons committed
to high court for trial?
Sect 168(3) of the Magistrate Court Act Cap 19 provides that when a
person charged with an offence to be tried by High Court appears before
the Magistrate Court and the DPP has drafted an Indictment and a
summary of the case, the Magistrate shall give the accused a copy of
indictment and summary of the case read them and explain to the accused.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE’S COURT AT

JINJACRIMINAL CASE NO: CRB 400/2024 – JINJA POLICE STATION
UGANDA ..................................................PROSECUTION
VERSUS
1. MUSERE LUWIS
2. OKELLO JACOB
.........................................................ACCUSED PERSONS

PROCEEDINGS OF 20TH JANUARY 2025

CORAM: HIS WORSHIP [NAME], CHIEF MAGISTRATE

PRESENT:

 Chief State Attorney: Counsel................. for the Director of Public

Prosecutions
 Accused persons: Present in person and not represented
 Court Clerk: Present

CHIEF STATE ATTORNEY:

"Your Worship, the matter is coming up for purposes of committal.

Investigations in this case have been completed, and the Director of Public
Prosecutions has issued an indictment against the accused persons, namely
Musere Luwis and Okello Jacob, for the offence of Murder contrary to
Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128.

We are ready to proceed with committal to the High Court and accordingly
tender the following documents for purposes of committal under Section
168 of the Magistrates Courts Act Cap 19:

1. Summary of the Case

2. Police file and witness statements
3. Post-mortem report
 4. Scene of crime report
5. Forensic analysis and exhibits list
6. The Indictment signed by the DPP

We pray that the accused be formally committed for trial to the High
Court at Jinja."

COURT (CHIEF MAGISTRATE):

"I have perused the indictment and the accompanying documents. There is
sufficient evidence disclosed on the police file to support the charges of
Murder C/S 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap 128.

Accordingly, I hereby commit Musere Luwis and Okello Jacob to the High
Court of Uganda at Jinja for trial on a date to be fixed by the Registrar."

(TO THE ACCUSED PERSONS):

"Musere Luwis and Okello Jacob, you are hereby informed that you
have been formally committed to the High Court to stand trial for the
offence of Murder. You shall remain on remand until such date as the
High Court may fix for your trial."

ORDER:

 Accused persons is committed to the High Court at Jinja for trial.

 Accused to be remanded in custody.

DATED at Jinja this 22nd day of April, 2025.

..............................................................
HIS WORSHIP [NAME]
CHIEF MAGISTRATE – JINJA COURT

ISSUE 5: Whether the accused in Kirinya Government prison can apply

for Bail?

The accused, currently remanded at Kirinya Government Prison, may apply

for bail before the High Court, as the offence of murder is a capital offence
triable only by the High Court.
Bail is a constitutional right under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution of
Uganda, subject to the court's discretion.

Justice Okello in Lawrence Luzinda vs Uganda (1986) defined bail as an

agreement between the court and the applicant consisting of a bond with
or without surety for a reasonable amount as the circumstance of the case
permit conditioned upon the applicant to appear before that court on the
specified date and time for trial.

Key Considerations for Bail

1.Presumption of Innocence.

Article 28(3)a provides that a person is presumed innocent until proven

guilty and also Article 28(3)c that the accused should be given a adequate
time to prepare.

Sect 15 of the Trial on Indictment Act Cap 25 provides that the High
Court may at any stage of proceedings release the accused person on bail.

In the case of Co. Rtd. Dr. Kiiza Besigye v Uganda Cr. Appeal No.83 of
2016.

The court stated that grounds for application of bail include

A fixed place of abode.

No likelihood of absconding if released.

No likelihood of influencing Witnesses

Substantial Sureties.

In the case of Florence Byabazaire vs Uganda Misc. App.284 of 2006

Justice Akiiki Kiiza stated that the accused person has no automatic right to
bail but rather the accused has the right to apply for bail.

2.Exceptional Circumstances:

Sect 16(1) (a) of the TIA Cap 25 provides court may fail to grant bail if the
accused does not grant exceptional circumstances justifying his or her
release on bail.
 The accused must demonstrate one or more of the following
exceptional circumstances.

o Grave illness certified by a medical officer.

o Advanced age (e.g., 50 years and above).
o Being a minor (below 18 years)

From the facts therefore the accused has the constitutional right to apply
for bail since the accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

ISSUE 6: What is the forum, procedure and the necessary documents?

Forum

High Court

Procedure.

Notice of Motion

Affidavit in Support Per Rule 2 and 3 of the Judicature (Criminal Procedure)

Application rules

Present sureties and Copies of National Ids and Introduction Letter from
Chairman.

Notice to the DPP Under Rule 4(1) of the Judicature (criminal) Procedure
application Rules.

Necessary Documents

Notice of Motion

Affidavit in Support.

(a) Notice of Motion.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. [......] OF 2025

(Arising from Criminal Case No. [......] of 2025)

MUSERE LUWIS ......................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA ..................................................................RESPONDENT

NOTICE OF MOTION

(Brought under Articles 23(6)(a) and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic

of Uganda, 1995 (as amended), and Sections 15 & 16 of the Trial on
Indictments Act, Cap 25)

TAKE NOTICE that this Honourable Court will be moved on the 24th day of
April at 12 OCLOCK or soon thereafter as Counsel for the Applicant shall be
heard on an application for orders that:

1. The Applicant, Musere Luwis, be released on bail pending trial in

Criminal Case No. [......] of 2025 currently before the High Court of
Uganda at Jinja.
2. Costs of this Application be provided for.
3. Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem just
and fit.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this application is supported by the affidavit

of the Applicant, Musere Luwis, which shall be relied upon at the hearing,
but briefly, the grounds of this Application are that:

1. The Applicant has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of this
Honourable Court.
2. The Applicant has credible sureties who are willing and able to
ensure his attendance in Court.
3. The Applicant is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
4. That it is in the interest of justice that the Applicant be granted bail.

DATED at Jinja this 22nd day of April, 2025.

 .............................................................
COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT

GIVEN under my hand and the seal of this Honourable Court this.............day
of January 2025.

.........................................

REGISTRAR.

Drawn and filed by:

[Insert Law Firm]

(b) Affidavit in Support.

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. [......] OF 2025

(Arising from Criminal Case No. [......] of 2025)

MUSERE LUWIS ......................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA ..................................................................RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF MOTION

I, Musere Luwis, of care of M/s [insert law firm], a male adult Ugandan
citizen of sound mind, currently on remand at Kirinya Government
Prison, do hereby solemnly swear and state as follows:

1. That I am the Applicant in this matter, well versed with the facts
herein and I swear this affidavit in that capacity.
2. That I was arrested on allegations of murder and charged in
Criminal Case No. [......]/2025 at the High Court of Uganda at Jinja,
 arising from CRB 400/2024 – Jinja Police Station, and was
subsequently remanded to Kirinya Government Prison.
3. That I deny the allegations and plead not guilty to the offence, and I
am informed by my lawyers, which information I verily believe to be
true, that I am presumed innocent until proven guilty.
4. That I have a fixed place of abode at [Insert address], within the
jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. (A letter of introduction from
the Local Council Chairperson is attached hereto and marked
Annexure “A”.)
5. That I have substantial sureties who are responsible citizens and are
ready to stand surety for me and ensure my attendance at trial.
(Copies of their National IDs are attached hereto and marked
Annexures “B” and “C”.)
6. That I have never been convicted of any offence of a capital nature or
otherwise.
7. That I undertake to abide by all conditions that this Honourable
Court may impose in granting me bail.
8. That this application is made in good faith and in the interest of
justice, and I pray that the same be granted.
9. That whatever I have stated herein above is true to the best of my
knowledge save for information advised to me by my lawyers.

DEPONENT
..................................................
MUSERE LUWIS

SWORN at Jinja this 22nd day of April, 2025.

BEFORE ME:
..................................................
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.

ISSUE 7: What is the necessary document for the state Attorney to file
in reply of the documents above?

THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA AT JINJA

 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. [......] OF 2025
(Arising from Criminal Case No. [......] of 2025)

MUSERE LUWIS ......................................................APPLICANT

VERSUS

UGANDA ..................................................................RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY TO NOTICE OF MOTION FOR BAIL

I, [FULL NAME], a Chief State Attorney with the Office of the Director of
Public Prosecutions stationed at Jinja Regional Office, do hereby solemnly
swear and state as follows:

1. That I am the prosecutor in Criminal Case No. [......]/2025 (arising

from CRB 400/2024 – Jinja Police Station), in which the Applicant is
charged with murder, and I am competent to swear this affidavit in
that capacity.
2. That the Applicant, Musere Luwis, stands jointly charged with
another accused for the offence of Murder, contrary to Sections 171
and 172 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 128, a grave and capital
offence.
3. That the facts as contained in the police file reveal that the Applicant
and his co-accused, while armed with blunt objects, allegedly
participated in the unlawful killing of Mugalya Federico on the 23rd
of October, 2024, in Kizungu Zone, Makindye Division, Kampala.
4. That the Applicant was positively identified by eye-witnesses,
including the deceased’s wife and a neighbour, and was implicated
through both oral testimonies and circumstantial evidence, including
a dying declaration.
5. That due to the serious nature of the offence and the strength of the
evidence against the Applicant, there is a real likelihood that if
released on bail, the Applicant may abscond from jurisdiction or
interfere with key prosecution witnesses, some of whom are known
to the Applicant.
6. That the Applicant has not demonstrated exceptional
circumstances within the meaning of Article 23(6)(a) of the
 Constitution and Section 15 of the Trial on Indictments Act Cap 23
to justify the grant of bail in a capital offence.
7. That investigations in the matter are complete, and the prosecution
is ready to proceed with the trial expeditiously at the next
convenient High Court criminal session.
8. That this Honourable Court ought to balance the constitutional
presumption of innocence against the need to ensure the proper
administration of justice and the security of witnesses.
9. That I make this affidavit in strong opposition to the Applicant’s
motion for bail and respectfully pray that the application be
dismissed.

SWORN at Jinja this 22nd day of April 2025

By the said
............................................................

DEPONENT

BEFORE ME:
............................................................
COMMISSIONER FOR OATHS.

ISSUE 8: What practical steps can the Deputy Registrar of the

Highcourt would take to successfully arrange a criminal session?

As the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, the following steps would be
taken to arrange a successful criminal session:

Under the administration of Judiciary Act Cap 4.

1. Preparation of the Cause List

 Review pending cases: Go through the records to identify cases

ready for trial, particularly capital offences such as murder.
 Prioritize cases: Prioritize cases based on the seriousness of the
offence, the length of time the accused has been on remand, and
readiness for trial (e.g., completed investigations and availability of
witnesses).
 Compile the cause list: Prepare a detailed cause list, including:
o Case numbers.
o Names of the accused.
 o Nature of the offence.
o Dates and times of hearings.
o Judges assigned to each case.

2. Coordination with Stakeholders

 Judges: Liaise with judges to allocate cases and schedule trials

efficiently.
 Assessors. Ensure that there are at least 2 assessors at the trial.
 Prosecution: Communicate with the Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions (ODPP) to ensure prosecutors are assigned and
prepared for the session.
 Defense Counsel: Notify assigned legal aid counsel (if any) or private
defense lawyers.
 Witnesses: Issue summons for witnesses, including medical officers,
investigating officers, and civilian witnesses.

3. Arrangements for Accused Persons

 Remanded Accused:
o Communicate with the Uganda Prisons Service to arrange
transport for the accused persons to attend court.
 Bailed Accused:
o Notify the accused persons and their sureties about the trial
dates and times.

4. Logistics and Courtroom Preparation

 Assign Courtrooms:
o Ensure that adequate courtroom space is available and
equipped for the session, including facilities for interpreters
and audiovisual equipment (if needed).
 Security:
o Work with police or other security agencies to ensure safety in
the courtroom, particularly for high-risk cases.
 Record Keeping:
o Arrange for court clerks and transcribers to manage
documentation during proceedings.

5. Communication and Publication

 Inform the Public:

 o Publish the cause list on the court notice board and, if
necessary, in public media to ensure transparency.
 Notify Stakeholders:
o Issue formal notices to all parties, including prosecutors,
defense counsel, witnesses, and prison authorities.

6. Monitoring and Follow-Up

 Daily Progress Checks:

o Monitor the session daily to address logistical or procedural
challenges.
 Record Outcomes:
o Ensure judgments, rulings, or adjournments are accurately
recorded and communicated to relevant parties.