President Yoweri Museveni has questioned the delay in hearing the appeal filed by death-row convict Christopher Okello Onyum, who was sentenced to death for murdering four toddlers at a daycare centre in Ggaba, Kampala, reigniting public debate over the pace of justice in one of Uganda’s most disturbing criminal cases.
Museveni, who has challenged the Judiciary to explain why the appeal remains pending months after the killings, wants the appellate process to demonstrate to the public that justice is being served, pointing to the unusually swift conclusion of the original trial.
The President raised the concern while meeting National Resistance Movement (NRM) Members of Parliament, recalling how he had urged the justice system to conduct Onyum’s trial near the scene of the killings to allow the public to follow the proceedings.
“You remember the other boy who killed children… I begged the system that you go and try him there. They went and tried him, but up to now, the case has disappeared,” Museveni said.
“If he appealed, why don’t you go and have the appeal heard there, where it was held? Why don’t you people show the people that justice has been done?” he asked.
Onyum was convicted on April 30 by the High Court after proceedings conducted through a mobile court at Ggaba Community Grounds, close to the daycare centre where the killings occurred.
Justice Alice Komuhangi Khaukha found him guilty of four counts of murder involving Eteku Gideon, Keisha Agenorwoth Otim, Sseruyange Ignatius and Odeke Ryan. She subsequently sentenced him to death on all four counts, describing the offences as falling within the “rarest of the rare” category.
The trial was completed in less than a month, an unusually short period for a case of such gravity. The speed of the proceedings was widely noted because of the public outrage that followed the deaths of the four children.
However, Onyum later challenged both his conviction and sentence through the Uganda Law Society’s legal aid office, exercising his constitutional right to appeal.
The appeal raises questions about the evaluation of evidence, the interpretation of medical evidence relating to his mental state and criminal responsibility, and whether the death sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.
Through his appeal, Onyum is asking the Court of Appeal to overturn the High Court decision, quash his conviction and set aside the sentence.
Director of Public Prosecutions Lino Anguzu has said his office is prepared to defend the conviction and sentence, but is waiting for the Court of Appeal to schedule the matter for hearing.
“We have been ready to prosecute this appeal from the time we were notified of it. We are simply waiting for a notification from the Court of Appeal. We will appear and defend both the conviction and sentence,” Anguzu said.
The Judiciary, however, has previously cautioned against equating the speed of the original trial with the time required to process an appeal.
Judiciary spokesperson James Ereemye Mawanda said the decision to conclude the High Court proceedings quickly did not automatically require the Court of Appeal to hear the matter within a similar timeframe.
He explained that the appeal would be scheduled according to the court’s case-management system and that the public would be informed when it was ready for hearing.
“His appeal cannot be tagged on the demand to be hanged. He has the right to appeal the same, which is now pending hearing,” Mawanda said in an earlier interview.
Onyum remains on death row at Luzira Prison as he awaits the appellate court’s decision. He cannot lawfully be executed while his appeal against the conviction and sentence remains pending.
The case continues to attract intense public attention because of the brutality of the killings, which reportedly took place within minutes, and the speed with which the original trial was concluded.
Museveni’s latest remarks have placed the pending appeal back in the national spotlight. However, the central question now is when the Court of Appeal will hear the matter, allowing the legal challenge to proceed while preserving the right to appeal and the independence of the judicial process.