Capt. Mike Muwonge & 4ors v Uganda [1993] UGSC 11 (19 July 1993)

{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang2057\deflangfe2057{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f250\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;} {\f251\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f253\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f254\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f255\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);} {\f256\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f257\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f258\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{ \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa100\sbauto1\saauto1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid15876270 Normal (Web);}{\s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid1470975 footer;}{\*\cs17 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid1470975 page number;}} {\*\latentstyles\lsdstimax156\lsdlockeddef0}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid-1769976710\listhybrid{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat140\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid-578355448 \'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fbias0 \fi-360\li1080\jclisttab\tx1080\lin1080 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'01.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-360\li1800\jclisttab\tx1800\lin1800 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'02.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li2520\jclisttab\tx2520\lin2520 } {\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'03.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3240\jclisttab\tx3240\lin3240 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0 \leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577\'02\'04.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li3960\jclisttab\tx3960\lin3960 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1 \levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'05.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-180\li4680\jclisttab\tx4680\lin4680 }{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext \leveltemplateid134807567\'02\'06.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li5400\jclisttab\tx5400\lin5400 }{\listlevel\levelnfc4\levelnfcn4\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807577 \'02\'07.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\fi-360\li6120\jclisttab\tx6120\lin6120 }{\listlevel\levelnfc2\levelnfcn2\leveljc2\leveljcn2\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\leveltemplateid134807579\'02\'08.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;} \fi-180\li6840\jclisttab\tx6840\lin6840 }{\listname ;}\listid471681254}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid471681254\listoverridecount0\ls1}}{\*\pgptbl {\pgp\ipgp0\itap0\li0\ri0\sb0\sa0}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid1470975\rsid1974642\rsid3019059\rsid3023526 \rsid4660869\rsid8027123\rsid10752264\rsid11103849\rsid12611501\rsid14830933\rsid15876270\rsid16525304}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 11.0.5604;}{\info{\title THE REPUBLiC OF UGANDA }{\author jchemeri}{\operator skivumbi} {\creatim\yr2009\mo11\dy16\hr15\min29}{\revtim\yr2009\mo11\dy16\hr16\min50}{\version3}{\edmins81}{\nofpages17}{\nofwords4663}{\nofchars26582}{\*\company JSI}{\nofcharsws31183}{\vern24689}}\paperw11906\paperh16838 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\formshade\horzdoc\dgmargin\dghspace180\dgvspace180\dghorigin1800\dgvorigin1440\dghshow1\dgvshow1 \jexpand\viewkind1\viewscale100\pgbrdrhead\pgbrdrfoot\splytwnine\ftnlytwnine\htmautsp\nolnhtadjtbl\useltbaln\alntblind\lytcalctblwd\lyttblrtgr\lnbrkrule\nobrkwrptbl\snaptogridincell\allowfieldendsel\wrppunct \asianbrkrule\rsidroot15876270\newtblstyruls\nogrowautofit \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid1470975 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid1470975 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid1470975 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\insrsid1470975 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \linex0\headery708\footery708\colsx708\endnhere\sectlinegrid360\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid3019059\sftnbj {\footer \pard\plain \s16\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar \tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\pvpara\phmrg\posxr\posy0\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12611501 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\field{\*\fldinst {\cs17\insrsid1470975 PAGE }}{\fldrslt { \cs17\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid3023526 1}}}{\cs17\insrsid1470975 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri360\widctlpar\tqc\tx4153\tqr\tx8306\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin0\itap0\pararsid1470975 {\insrsid1470975 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1 \widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 THE REPUBLI}{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 C OF UGANDA}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \line IN TH}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 E SUPREME COURT OF }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 UGANDA}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 AT MENGO \line (CORAM }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 : }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 MANYINDO }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 - }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 DCJ, ODER-JSC,PLATT-JSC) \line CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1990 \line BETWEEN \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Al. CPL MIKE MUWONGE \line A2. KENNEDY BWANIKA \line A3. MORRIS KATO}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 ==================================}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 APPELLANTS \line A4. MOHAMMED KYEYUNE \line A5. YUSUFU LUBULWA ALIAS KIGANDA \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\qc \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 AND \line U}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 G}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 ANDA==========================================R}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 ESPON}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 DEN}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 T \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Appeal against conviction and sentence of the }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 H/C}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 decision holden at }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264\charrsid11103849 Kampala}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (Hon. }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 Mr.}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Justice \line Kalanda) dated the HI day of July 1990 from \line H. C Cr. Ss. Case No.31/88). \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\b\ul\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The five appellants and a Captain Kibuuka, who was the first accused and who has since died, were convicted of treason by the High Court and sentenced to death. Hence this appeals. Ten overt acts of treason were alleged in the indic tment. In overt act No.1. it was alleged that the third appellant (Kato) and late Kibuuka were on the 29th day of October, 1986, at Bahai Temple near Kampala introduced to the Police Detective Constable Sserwadda Lubega (PW 1) as members of a group of per sons who were plotting to over throw the Government and they did promise to introduce military leaders of their group. \line In overt act No. 2 it was alleged that the third appellant and late Kibuuka on 12-11-86, at Bahai Temple attended and discussed in a meeting with police Inspector Kayongo (PW2), Detective Assistant In}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 spector Alazewa and Lubega. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (PW1) plans to overthrow the Government by force of arms. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The third overt act alleges that on 30-11-86, at Kampala High Secondary school play ground, Kabuuka,}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 Kato and Lubul}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 wa the fifth appellant attended a meeting whereat plans to overthrow the Government by forces of arms were discussed. Overt Act No.4 concerns Lubulwa alone. It alleges that on 1-12-86, he took PW1 to Mbuya Military Barracks and showed him se nsitive targets to be attacked. Overt at No. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid3023526 5}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 relates to Kyeyune, the fourth appellant only. It alleges that on 3-12-86, at a playground behind Kampala Police Fire Brigade Headquarters he met PWI and Alazewa and discussed with them the plot to overthrow the government by force of arms. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In overt act No. 6, it is alleged that Kibuuka and Kato on 17-12-86, at Jinja, near the source of the River Nile, met with PW1, PW2 and Alazewa to be shown the fighting group from the Eastern Region. Overt act No. }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 7 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 alleges that on 1-1-87, Kibuuka, Kato and Lubuiwa held a meeting at Lugogo by-pass play ground in Kampala whereat an operational plan to overthrow the government by force of arms was discussed. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In overt act No.8 Kato appears alone. It is alleged that on 2-1-87, at Channel Street, Kampala, behind a place called Amazima Textiles; he met PW1 and PW2 and sought from them a vehicle to transport the leader of the plotters to attend a meeting on the same subject of over-throwing the Government. According to overt act N o . 9 Kyeyune, Kato, and other persons still at large on 3-1-87, met with PW1, PW2 and Alazewa in a house at Kibuye, Kampala, and discussed plans to overthrow the government. And in overt act No. 10 it is claimed that on 6-1-87, at Bahai Temple, Kibuuka, Mu wonge (1}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 st}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Appellant) Bwanika (2}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 nd}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 Appellant) Kato, Kyeyune, Lubul}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 wa }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 and other persons still at }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 large held a meeting and discussed the final plans for the overthrow of the Government. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The prosecution case was that sometime in October 1986, police received information that the appellants, the late Kibuuka and other persons still at large were plotting to overthrow the Government in a coup detat. At the time the late Kibuuka was a Captai n in the National Resistance Army. Mu}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 wonge was a Corporal while Lubu}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 lwa was a Sergeant in the same Army. The remaining appellants were civilians. D/C Lubega (PW1) Police Inspecto}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 r (now ASP) Kayongo (PW2) and D}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 /A}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 I}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 P Alazewa were detailed by Detective Senior Superintendent of Police Nekemiya Kibuuka (PW3) to go with one of the informants and infiltrate the plotters and investigate their activities with a view to bringing them to book. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The Police would not reveal the identity of the informant. That is understandable. In a case of this nature the identity of the informants must of necessity remain obscure. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 and Alazewa who did not testify easily joined the plotters, posing as members of another group opposed to Government, and based in Jinja District. PW1 had in his pocket a micro compact recorder with which the deliberations at the various meetings were recorded. A Police Photographer was also at hand to take photographs of some of the meetings. The evidence of the tapes a nd the photographs was relied on by the prosecution as corroboration of the evidence of PW 1 and PW2. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The appellants, except Kyeyune, were arrested together with Pwl and Pw2 while attending the final meeting at Bahai}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 Temple on 6-1-87, by DSSP }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Nekemiya Kibuuka (PW3). Kyeyune is said to have escaped but was arrested later from his place of work. \line At the close of the case for the prosecution the two counsel representing the appellants made a joint submission of no case to answer. It was delivered by the Senior Counsel in the case, Mr. Lugayizi. The submission was overruled by the trial judge whereupon Mr. Lugayizi stood up and said:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 \'93A}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264\charrsid10752264 ll}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 our clients}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 Kibuuka, Muwonge & Bwanika won}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \lquote t say a word; and would keep quiet and we are calling no witnesses\'94 \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The o ther Counsel in the case, Mr. Kasirye stated likewise. He said:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid10752264 \'93I}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 say my}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 clients Kato, Kyeyune and Lubulwa, won \lquote I }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 say anything-no witnesses.\'94 \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid10752264 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The case was then adjourned for one week to allow Counsel time to prepare their final addresses to the Court. T he addresses were subsequently made. The trial judge then summed up the case to the Assessors who, in a joint opinion, advised him to convict the appellants and late Kibuuka as charged. In a lengthy and considered judgment the trial judge accepted the evi dence of the prosecution eyewitnesses. He found corroboration from the evidence of the tapes and the photographs which photographs incriminated Kato and Kyeyune. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The appellants were at first represented by Mr. Kalule Luyombo who filed two grounds of appeal , but by the time the appeal was heard he had been joined by four other Counsel, namely Remmy Kasule, Ssebunya, Kafuko of Kawanga & Kasule Advocates and Muguluma of Kirenga and Ndizireho Advocates. Each of these two firms filed a supplementary Memorandum o}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 f appeal. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In all twenty grounds of appeal were filed but they can be summarised in eight grounds as follows: - \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid10752264 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 1. }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That there was a mistrial because after finding that the appellants had a case to answer, the trial judge did not inform them of their rights under Section 71(2) of the Trial on Indictments Decree. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 2. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellants on the uncorroborated evidence of PW1 and PW2 who were accomplices and not genuine spies. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 3. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial judge erred in ac cepting the evidence of the tapes and the photographs. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 4. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial Judge erred in accepting hearsay evidence. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 5.}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial judge erred in ignoring the defence case as put up in cross- examination of witnesses and submissions by Counsel for the appellants, especially with regard to Muwonge and Bwanika. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 6. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial Judge erred in law when he considered and believed the prosecution case before sufficiently considering \'93all possible defences\'94 to the appellants. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 7. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the trial judge erred in law in finding all the appellants guilty in an omnibus conviction when they had been charged differently for different overt Acts. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 8. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 That the decision was agai}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 nst the weight of evidence. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Clearly grounds 2 to 7 are alternative to ground 1 because if the trial was illegal or defective, then a retrial ought to be ordered except where it might be prejudicial to appellants. \line See: }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Alloys v Uganda }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1972) EA 469 and }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Fatehali Menji v Republic }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1966) EA 342. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Accordingly, we will consider this ground firs t. It is not disputed that in the record of proceedings it is not recorded that section 71 (2) of the Trial of Indictments Decree was complied with. The sub-section requires a trial judge, before putting an accused person on his defence, to inform him of h is right (a) to give evidence on his behalf; or (b) make an unsworn statement and (c) to call witnesses in his defence. The Judge must then ask the accused person or his Advocate if it is intended to exercise any of these rights and must record the answer . \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Mr. Kasule who argued this ground also relied on the Criminal Procedure (Recording of Evidence) Rules which were made under Legal Notice No. 184 of 1958 and pursuant to Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In particular, he relied on rules 3 (1) a nd 3 (4) which provide as follows: - \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \'93 3(1). The evidence of witnesses in cases coming before the High Court may be taken down in writing and in the language of the Court by either of the following methods, the trial judge may decide- \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869

\par }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (a) }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 by the judge himself in long hand; \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 (b)}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 by another person in presence and hearing, and under personal }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 direction and }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 superintendence, of the judge. \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (2) }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (3}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 )\tab \'85\'85\'85\'85\'85}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The State Counsel, Mr. Lubwa argued that under section 71(2) the trial Judge must inform the accused of his s aid rights but he is not required to record the fact. The Judge is only required to record course of action chosen by the accused person or his Advocate. He submitted that there is no prescribed form in the Trial on Indictments Decree as to how the procee dings should be recorded by a trial judge; a trial Judge need not and usually does not record everything that goes on during the trial. \line There is no specific requirement in the Decree for the trial judge to record the proceedings in the case. However, section 139 and 140 of the Decree seem to cover the point. They state as follows:}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 - \par }\pard \s15\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 \'93139.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \tab }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 When no exp}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 ress provision is made in this }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Decree, the practice of the High }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 C}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 o}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 urt}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 in its Criminal jurisdiction shall be assimilated as nearly as circumstances will admit to the practice of the High Court of Justice in its Criminal jurisdiction and of Courts of Oyer and Terminer and General Goal Delivery in England. \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par {\listtext\pard\plain\s15 \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 140.\tab}}\pard \s15\ql \fi-360\li1080\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar \jclisttab\tx1080\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\ls1\adjustright\rin0\lin1080\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 If any person affected by any judgment or order passed in any proceedings under this Decree desires to have a copy of the judgment or order or any part of the record, be shall on applying for such copy be furnished there-with provided he pays for the same, unless the court for some special reason thinks fit to furnish it free of cost\rquote \line }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Now the provision in Sect ion 139 above is not very helpful in some ways as it requires the High Court of this Country, a court of record to sometimes follow the unspecified practice of the various Courts of England. However, the cardinal aspect of a court of record is that the pr oceedings in that court are recorded and presented as a permanent record. In our view the combined effect of these two Sections is that a record of proceedin}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 gs must be made by a trial }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Judge. There is also the provisions in Article 83 (3) of the Constitution and Section 3 (1) of the Judicature Act (No.11 of 1967) that the High Court shall be a superior court of record. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Mr. Kasule contended that failure by a trial judge to record that he informed the accused person of his rights under Section 71 (2) mea ns that the accused was not so informed which amounts to a miscarriage of justice as the accused cannot properly put forward his defence. The trial becomes a non-trial. He submitted that that is what happened in this case. Authorities were cited in suppor t of that preposition. The first case is: }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 Sitapakwe s/o}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Kilembo. v. R }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1945) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 12 EACA 41. The appellant, Sitapakwe, was convicted by the High Court of the then Tanganyika of the murder of his wife. On appeal it was not clear to the Court from the record whethe r at the close of the prosecution case the trial judge had explained to the appellant his rights under Section 267 of the Criminal Procedure Code, it being recorded merely that his Advocate had informed the Court that the accused had \'93nothing to say \'94. \line The Court of Appeal observed that it was not enough for the Counsel for the appellant to state the course to be followed by his client unless he stated that he had explained the rights to his client who thereafter elected to say nothing. The strange thing ab out this case is that the Court merely stated the principle; it did not apply it. It went on to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was ample evidence, including the appellant\rquote s admission to the killing, to support the conviction. If the omission by Court to inform the appellant of his rights and the failure by his own Counsel to consult him on the matter were fatal, then the Court of Appeal perhaps should have allowed the appeal since the confession might have been challenged. In the premises, we c annot agree with Mr. Kasule that the irregularity there was incurable. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 We think that it must have }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 been cured inter alia by the evidence which proved the charge against the appellant. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The second case was: }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Bwanika v. }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 Uganda}{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1967) EA 768. That was a Hi gh Court decision on appeal against the judgment of a Magistrate. The appellant had been convicted of theft from a motor vehicle, contrary to Sections 252 and 256(c) of the Penal Code and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. On appeal Sir Udo Udoma CJ }{ \i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (as }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 he then was) found no record that the appellant\rquote s rights under section 210 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act had been explained to him. That section has been repealed by re-enacted as section 126 of the Magistrates Courts Act (MCA). These sections are ide ntical with S.267 of the Tanganyika Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Chief Justice held that the trial Magistrate should have recorded such an explanation but that the error was not fatal as the judgment showed that the appellant had \'93opted\'94 to make an unsworn statement. That meant that his rights had been explained to him. It is noteworthy that in the repealed Section 210 CPC and the present section 126 of MCA there is no mention of Advocate, unlike the wording of Section 71(2) of the Trial on Indictm ents Decree. This is presumably so because unlike in the Magistrates\rquote Courts, an accused person is always represented by Counsel in the High Court, in capital offences. That is the position at least in this Country. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Mr. Kasule\rquote s other case was another High Court of Uganda case: }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Jada v. R }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1956 \emdash 57) 8 ULR 71 where on appeal Sheridah J. (as he then was) set aside the conviction on the grounds that the trial Magistrate had not complied with s.210 and had wrongly shifted the burden of proof onto the defence. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In our view if failure to comply with Section 210 had been fatal requiring a retrial then there was hardly any need to co}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 nsider the burden of proof. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par Under Section 71(2) the trial Judge is required to inform the }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869\charrsid11103849 accused}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 person of his rights and elici t an answer either from him or his Counsel. This is a departure from the provision in the Magistrates\rquote Courts Act where the Court must address itself to the accused person and not his Counsel. \line In his Judgment the trial Judge stated what happened in this case. He said (page 2)): - \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \'93}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 At the close of the prosecution}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \lquote s case the accused opted not to }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid4660869 give}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 any evidence and had no witnesses to }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869\charrsid11103849 call}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \'94 \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid4660869 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The implication of that statement is that the appellants were informed of their rights. The trial Judge was entitl ed under s.71(2) to take the answer either from the advocate or the appellants. In this case the answers given by both Counsel for the appellants leave no doubt that the Appellant\rquote s rights had been explained to them and a deliberate decision taken that }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid4660869\charrsid11103849 it}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 was better for the appellants not to offer a defence. The failure by the trial Judge to record that he had complied with the section was in the circumstances of this case curable and did not occasion a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly the first ground of Appeal fails. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 We will next consider grounds }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid8027123 5}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 and 6 together. The complaint here was that the trial Judge erred in not addressing the suggestion put to PW1 and PW2 in cross-exam}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 ination, that Kato and Kyeyune -}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 the appellants appearing in the photograph}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 s -}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 were forced to appear there in after their arrest and not during the meetings as claimed by PW 1 and PW2. In respect of Muwonge and Bwanika it had been suggested in cross-examination that they were not arrested at Bahai Temple but elsewhere. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 It is har d to see how these can possibly be regarded as possible defences, in view of the fact that the appellants chose not to make any defence. If they were defences then they must have been abandone}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 d. But what defences would }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 they be? The position of the ap pellants all along was that they never attended the meetings. To suggest, as did Mr. Sebunya their Counsel, that Kato and Kyeyune were coerced, would thus be a contradiction in terms. The defences of alibi and coercion cannot possibly go together because i f you were coerced then you were there, yet alibi means elsewhere. These two defences can only be argued in alternative. As for Muwonge and Bwanika, if their defence was one of alibi then it was not pursued. They had to raise it in their defence and then establish it on the balance of probabilities. This they did not do. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Mr. Sebunya appreciated this point and therefore shifted his ground. He submitted that the only possible defence was that of a framed up case against the appellants. In our opinion there i s no merit in the submission. Whether the case was framed up or not is a question of fact and not a defence as such. Clearly the trial Judge ruled out the suggestion of a framed up case when he considered and believed the evidence of the prosecution witne sses. These two grounds must fail. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 We now come to ground 3. first, the photographs. These were taken by Detective Senior Superintendent, Kitamirike who passed away before the trial commenced. The photographs relate to the scenes at Bahai, Jinja, Kampala Fi re Brigade and Kampala High School. It was submitted for the appellants Kato and Kyeyune that the photographs should not }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 have been admitted in evidence -}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (a), because the trial Judge did not visit the alleged scenes to verify them, and (b), there are no la nd marks such as the Bahai Temple. Source of the Nile or School buildings at Kampala High Secondary School, to connect the photographs with the alleged scenes of crime. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Admittedly, these matters were not raised before the trial Judge, when they should. It was not fair for Counsel to raise them on }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 appeal. Be that as it may, }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 it is clear that these matters could not per se render the photographs inadmissible. There can be no hard and fast rule as to what should be included in a photograph of a scene of crime. It would all depend upon the angle of the camera or even the intentions of the photographer. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 We note that in these particular photographs the background is blurred. In the end it is all a matter of evidence. Here the trial Judge believed the eviden ce of PWI and PW2 that the photographs were taken at the places in question. That is what matters. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 With regard to the tapes, the complaint was that the dubbed and not the original tapes were played in Court when the dubbing and transcribing was done in ab sence of the appellants and their Counsel and also not done in accordance with the instructions given by the trial Judge. It was contended that the appellants were entitled to listen to the original tapes but were not allowed to do so. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Therefore, it was submitted, the evidence of the tapes should not have been admitted, let alone relied on in convicting appellants, Kato, Kyeyune and Lubulwa. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 According to the record, there was an attempt to play the original tapes in Court and in the hearing of all parties . But they were not clear enough as they were very small so Counsel in the case agreed to the used of dubbed ones. The idea was to make them easy to hear. It is clear from the record (P.20) that the dubbed tapes were played and compared with the transcrip ts in Court and in the hearing of all the parties and that PW1 explained to the Court as to who was saying what. The appellants and their Counsel were apparently happy with that so it is surprising that this}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 point was taken on appeal. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par Again the record shows that it was the leading Counsel for the Appellants, Mr. Lugayizi, who informed Court that the presence of Counsel during the dubbing would not be necessary provided a Court official was appointed to supervise the exercise. Ms. Wolayo (PW7) now an A sst. Registrar of the High Court but who was then a Grade I Magistrate was appointed by the Court in that regard. Clearly the appellants cannot now be heard to complain on this point. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The directive of the trial Judge regarding the dubbing and transcribing the tapes was this:-. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid8027123 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \'93 Court: The tapes are already Court exhibits. The transcribing will be done by the Court. Let the Registrar or Magistrate Grade 1 or Chief Magistrate be detailed to do so. He or she has to use computer new sealed tapes and has to be present full time.\'94 \line }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid8027123 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 It seems that the word \'93transcribing\'94 was intended to mean \'93dubbing.\'94 Of course the two words to not mean the same thing. This was in oversight. The dubbing was done by Sentongo (PW6) who testified that it lasted for, a good six hours and that Wolayo was present throughout. The transcribing (from Luganda to English) was done by Kirumira (PW5). His evidence on the point was that Wolayo was present most of the time when the transcription was done. The transcription was disputed by Counse l for the appellants who requested us to test Mr. Kirumira by making him play the dubbed tapes again and make transcripts of the same. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 We wondered why this course of action should be adopted since the appellants\rquote case was that they never attended the alleg ed meetings. Nevertheless we granted the request. Mr. Kirumira played two tapes selected by Counsel for the appellants out of the five tapes. The transcripts turned out to be substantially }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 the same as the original ones. }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 This then leaves only the question whether }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid8027123 it}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 was proper for the Court to use the dubbed tapes. As we understand it, the law on this point seems to be this. Ideally, original tapes should be produced and used at a trial. A transcript may be used if the Court is satisfied of its accuracy. See: }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 R.}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 v. Robson and Harris }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1972) 2 ALL. E. R. 699 and Cross on Evidence }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 5th }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Edition Page 13. Copies or dubbed tapes may be used where, as in the instant case, the original micro tapes cannot be heard clearly. See: }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 R. v. Mausud Ali}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Ashiq Hussain }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1965) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 A2 AR. E. R. 464. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The point was made that the Police investigators PW1 and PW2 should never have tested the dubbed tapes before the trial as that would amount to interfering with evidence. We cannot agree. How were they to know if the tapes were of any use? We therefore see no merit in this ground. The fourth ground was about hearsay evidence. It was not pursued seriously, presumably because there was no material on the record to support it. It has no merit. It should have been abandoned by Mr. Kafuko, who d id not seem to appreciate the necessity for evidence of consistency in a case like this. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 With regard to ground No.7 Mr. Kafuko was again not able to press his point that there was an omnibus conviction although he refused to abandon it. All he could conced e was that it was a weak ground. As already pointed out, different appellants appeared in different overt acts. The trial Judge was alive to this fact. This is how he dealt with the matter of the convictions. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li720\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid8027123 {\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \'93 In view of what I have stated herein above, and in total agreement with both Assessors, I do find that the prosecution has lived to the }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123\charrsid11103849 expected}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 standard of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the over acts against the accused and are found guilty as charged and are convicted of the charge of treason contrary to Section 2}{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 5(1)(c) of the Penal Code Act.\'94}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (sic) }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard \s15\ql \li0\ri0\sb100\sa240\sbauto1\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\ipgp1\pararsid11103849 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The Judge had earlier in the judgment dealt with the overt acts separately and had found that each appellant participated as a}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 lleged in the relevant overt act.}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 He finally convicted them in the above terms. There are nothing wrong with that. There was no omnibus conviction and this much was conceded by Mr. Kafuko. This ground }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid8027123 fails.}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \line }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 We will consider the remaining grounds 2 and 8 together. The contention in these grounds was that the evidence l ed by the prosecution was given by accomplices; that it required corroboration but there was none. Therefore, it was not sufficient to warrant the convictions of the appellants. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 It is not disputed that PW1 and PW2 are Police Officers or that they particip ated in the meetings where the plot to overthrow the Government was hatched. It was argued that PW1 and PW2 were not genuine spies because (a) they selected some of the meeting places and even set up their own camp in a forest and took some of the appella nts there in order to convince them that they were serious in the matter. \line In the circumstances, it was contended, the witnesses were accomplices whose testimony required corroboration. The cases of: }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 Ndib}{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid8027123 owa}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 & 2 Others v. Uganda }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1988 Supreme Court (unreported) }{ \b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Brannan v. Peek (1948) IK. B 68 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 and }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Jathasa v. R. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1969) E. A. }{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 459 }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 were cited in support of the argument. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The law regarding Agent Provocateur seems to us to be fairly well settled. It is this. An Agent Provocateur is a person who seeks to encourage another person to commit an offence in order to detect or obtain evidence of the commission of the offence by that other and to secure his conviction. In other words, he is a spy. in the case of a genuine Spy there is no need for corrob o}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 ration of his }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 evidence. See: }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Ndibowa (supra), Juthwa }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (supra) }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Mullins v. R. }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1848) 3 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Cox }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid8027123 526}{\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 and }{\b\i\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Githea v. R. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (1956) 23 EACA 440. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 As was pointed out in those cases, where an Agent Provocateur goes beyond the role of a genuine Spy then he becomes an accomplice. In that case corroboration of his evidence is required. If there is no corroboration then the Court must warn itself of the dangers of relying on the uncorroborated evidence of the accomplice before convicting the accused person. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In this case the trial Judge correctly summed up this }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123\charrsid11103849 legal}{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 position to the Assessors. He also directed himself accordingly in his judgment before holding that the witnesses were not accomplices but genuine spies. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 With respect, we are satisfied that the trial Judge came to a correct finding on the evidence before him which clearly showed that t}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 he meetings were arranged by PW}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 1 and the appellants and ot hers not before Court. In our view even if these witnesses had arranged the places and even persuaded the appellants to go there, that alone could not amount to reason. Treason lay in what was said at those meetings and not the meetings themselves. If the alleged treason was discussed by the appellants then PWI and PW2 could not be guilty of any impropriety. The actors would have been the appellants. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 But this defence was fraught with another difficult. The appellants\rquote case was, as already pointed out, that they never attended the alleged meetings. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 If that is so then what the prosecution witnesses did at the meetings was immaterial. This is why }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Brannan }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 (supra), must be distinguished from this case. In that case the Court found that the Police not only commi}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 tted the }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 offence but encouraged and persuaded the reluctant appellant to commit the same. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In the instant case the plotters had already begun to discuss their plans before PW1 and PW2 came in as spies. Mr. Muguluma\rquote s main point was that the appellant s were not present at those meetings. Therefore his claim that PWI and PW2 were not spies at the meeting as far as the appellants are concerned was untenable. The attack on PWl and PW2 that they were not spies faded away. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 Now, were they there? The evidenc e came from PWI and PW2. The trial Judge found these witness to be substantially truthful. Their evidence clearly showed, in respect of Kato, that 29-10-86, he attended a meeting at Bahai Temple where they agreed to fight and remove the Government. He als o attended the meetings of 12-1 1-86 at the same place (he appears in a photograph taken at the meeting). On 30-11-86, he attended the meeting at Jinja, and appears in the photograph which was taken there and then. He attended the meeting at Jinja on 17-12 -86, and appears in the photograph of that meetings. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 On 1-1-87, he was at the meeting at Lugogo where he even explained the coup plans. On 2-1-87, he met PW1 at a shop in Kampala. On 3-1-87, he attended a meeting with the group\rquote s patron, Prince Kimera, at Kibuye where the coup was again discussed. Finally, he was arrested in the last meeting of 6-1-87, at Bahai Temple. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 According to PW1 and PW2 Kato was an active participant in the discussions at those meetings. This is borne out by the tapes. Mr. Kirumira (PW5) was challenged in cross-examination at the trial as to how h}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 e could tell the voices of }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 the concerned appellants on the dubbed tapes. He explained that he had listened to }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123\charrsid11103849 the}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 tapes several times and had come to know those voices of the concerned appellants very well. }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid8027123 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 There can be no doubt that treason was discussed at those meetings. We are satisfied that Kato was properly convicted. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The same goes for Kyeyune. He attended the meeting of 29-1-86, at Bahai Temple and clearly agreed that the Govern ment must be overthrown. He and his colleagues repeated the same thing on 3-12-86, at Kampala Fire-Brigade. He appears in the photograph which was taken there and then. On 3-1-87, he attended the Kibuye meeting. At all these meetings the treason was discu ssed. This is confirmed by the tapes. Like in the case of Kato the evidence of the photograph and the tapes clearly corroborated that of PW1 and PW2. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par Lubul}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 wa was also rightly convicted in our opinion. He did not only participated in the meetings of 30-11-8 6 (which as we think is also supported by a photograph) 1-12-86, 1-1-87, where he explained the coup plans and 6-1- 87, but also led PW1 to Mbuya Military Barracks and showed him targets to be attached during the coup. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 The convictions of Muwonge and Bwani ka are doubtful. They were charged only in overt act No.10 which relates to the very last meeting. They never attended any other meeting. They only evidence against them is that they attended that meeting on 6-1-87, at Bahai Temple where they were arreste d with the other appellants. Many others escaped. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 There is no evidence that either Muwonge or Bwanika said anything at that meeting. The claim by PW1 and PW2 that these two appellants were introduced as commandos and that they willingly accepted their assignments by Late Kibuuka is not clearly borne out by the tapes. Yet the trial Judge appears to have heavily relied on that claim in convicting them. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 In the circumstances we are of the view that the charge against them was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. We accordingly allow their appeal, quash the convictions, set aside the sentence and order that they be released from custody unless they are held there on other lawful grounds. The ap}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 peals of Kato, Kyeyune and Lubul}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 wa alias Kiganda are dismissed. \line }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par Dated at Mengo this 19}{\lang1033\langfe2057\super\langnp1033\insrsid3023526\charrsid3023526 th}{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 day of July }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 1993. \line }{ \lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 S. T. MANYINDO \line DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE \line }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 A. H. O. ODER}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \line JUSTI}{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 CE OF THE SUPREME COURT \line }{ \b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid3023526 \par }{\b\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 H. G. PLATT \line JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT }{\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid15876270\charrsid11103849 \par }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl360\slmult1\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11103849 \fs24\lang2057\langfe2057\cgrid\langnp2057\langfenp2057 {\lang1033\langfe2057\langnp1033\insrsid14830933\charrsid11103849 \par }}