Three justices of the Court of Appeal led by Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, and others who included Justice Ketrah Kitariisibwa Katunguka and Justice Cornelia Kakooza Sabiiti have directed that Isaiah Wanamama, a senior State Attorney in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (ODPP) be investigated over allegations of fraudulent plea-bargaining deals.
The directive resulted from an appeal made by Wanamama through his lawyers led by Evans Ochieng and Moses Ongoriya challenging the decision of the former Principal Judge Dr Flavian Zeija to put aside a plea-bargaining deal presided over by Justice Kania Comfort Rossetti of the Criminal Division of the High Court.
The DPP filed a judicial review challenging the results of the plea-bargaining claiming that it was done fraudulently, hence Dr Zeija agreed with the DPP and directed for a retrial of the matter and directed that Wanamama be investigated.
Court records show that Ongoriya entered a plea-bargain deal after being charged with the murder of Arnold Ainebyona on 9 July, 2019, at Quality Shopping Village in Naalya in Kira Municipality in Wakiso District
More Read
DPP claims that Wanamama fraudulently without consulting his supervisor Hope Mutoni amended the charges from murder to manslaughter and after pleading guilty, he was sentenced to six years imprisonment.
Court of Appeal judges condemned Justice Kania for allowing the plea-bargain agreement when there was no indication of new evidence and prosecutorial explanation recorded without the substitution of the offence noting that even the charge sheet was not amended which amounts to a misrepresentation of material facts presented to her at the time of plea-bargaining.
“Having been presented with an amended indictment whose particulars and agreed statement of fact did not correspond with the offence of manslaughter, the court ought to have satisfied itself that the admitted facts disclosed the offence charged before recording a conviction, thereby ensuring that the plea was unequivocal. The court did not. With due respect therefore, we are unable to find that the conviction was founded upon an unequivocal plea,” the judges stated.
The judges further noted that it was wrong for Wanamama to enter a plea-bargaining and sign the agreement without involving the deceased’s family which violated the plea-bargaining principal which required the victims and complainants be consulted rubbishing his defence that he reached the decision in good faith because he wanted to decongest the prisons.
The judges noted that Wanamama’s actions of hiding the file after entering the plea-bargaining deal and not delivering it to his supervisors for review was also questionable and needs to be investigated.
The judges added that there was no explanation on why the charge was reduced from murder to manslaughter which led to the deal yet the indictments still showed that the deceased was killed with malice aforethought.
The judges agreed with Wanamama that Dr Zeija violated his powers by presiding over a matter which was already pronounced by a High Court judge noting that the orders which he made were supposed to be made by the appellant Court above the High Court.
The judges directed for retrial of the matter by another judge and declined to allow Wanamama’s prayer that a prosecutor cannot be subjected to investigation or criminal trial over his decision on a matter.
The judges agreed with Caroline Nabaasa who represented the DPP that prosecutors are not above the constitution of the country when executing their duties on behalf of Ugandans noting that whatever decision they make should be in the interests of their principals the Ugandans and these decisions are subjected to scrutiny.
According to Court records, on the fateful day, the accused person Angoriya while coming from a short call went to the crime scene and found a scuffle between the deceased and his friends and the Askari of the shopping village a one Awazi Babu.
He joined the struggle and fought Andrew Atuhaire Mugisha thereafter instructing the Asikari that he should not allow the deceased to leave the yard.
Immediately, he went to the security box, picked a gun with two rounds of ammunition and came back to the scene and he pointed the gun randomly at the three brothers threatening to shoot at them.
The three including the crowd that had gathered, begged him to put down the gun but he refused. He punched the deceased in the mouth and pushed him.
He then pointed the gun at the deceased face and pushed him down as the crowd advised him to run away while begging the accused not to shoot but instead, he pointed the gun at the deceased and shot him.
