Okwera Alex v Attorney General (Complaint UHRC 20 of 2006) [2025] UGHRC 3 (7 March 2025)


## THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

# THE UGANDA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION TRIBUNAL **HOLDEN AT GULU**

### **COMPLAINT NO. GLU/20/2006**

**COMPLAINANT** OKWERA ALEX $\begin{smallmatrix}&&&&&&&1\\ 0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0&0\\ &1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1\\ &1&1&1&1&1&1&1&1\\ &1&1&1&1&$

### $-AND-$

#### ATTORNEY GENERAL :::::::::::::::::::::: **RESPONDENT**

### **CORAM:**

| 1. HON. MARIAM WANGADYA | <b>CHAIRPERSON</b> | |-------------------------------|---------------------| | 2. HON. SIMEO MUWANGA NSUBUGA | COMMISSIONER | | 3. HON. JACKLET ATUHAIRE | | | RWABUKURUKURU | <b>COMMISSIONER</b> | | 4. HON. SHIFRAH LUKWAGO | <b>COMMISSIONER</b> |

### **DECISION**

The complainant is a Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) soldier attached to Engineering Brigade Gulu. At the time of his father's death he was 19 years old. He brought this complaint as a son and administrator of the estate of the late Omona Martin. He alleged that on $2^{nd}$ February 2006 at around 8:30 am while at his home he learnt that his father had

$\mathbf{1}$

been beaten to death by UPDF soldiers attached to Mike Battalion, Atiaba, Gulu. The late Omona was a resident of Holy Rosary Sub-ward, Queen's Parish, Laroo, Gulu Municipality.

The late Omona Martin is survived by 2 wives; Ayat Esther, and Akello Fildia, and 5 adult "children"; Okwera Alex, Oyet Vincent, Kipwola Monica, Atimango Fiona and Laker Julie. At the time of his death, Omona was 42 years old.

Okwera contended that the alleged killing of his father by UPDF soldiers was intentional, deliberate and unlawful and amounted to violation of his right to life. During the material time the said soldiers were acting in the course of their employment as agents of the state. Okwera holds the respondent vicariously liable for their actions. He seeks compensation.

The respondent through his representatives Mr. Shaffi Amuru, Ms. Elizabeth Nyakwebara, and Mr. Tuhangane Wilbroad denied liability.

### **Issues:**

- Whether the respondent's agents violated Omona's right to $(i)$ life; - Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation. $(ii)$

$\mathbf{2}$

Before we resolve the above issues we put on record that the tribunal as currently constituted did not hear this case. It was heard by our former colleagues Hon. Agaba Maguru, and Hon. Justice (Rtd.) Gideon Tinyinondi, sitting as sole Commissioners. We took over this matter after the complainant's case had been fully heard and closed. The matter was pending defence. This decision is based on the record of proceedings as prepared by the 2 Commissioners.

The respondent's representatives did not call any witnesses in defence of Neither did they file any submissions to rebut the the matter. complainant's evidence. This however did not absolve the complainant of the duty of proving his case against the respondent on the balance of probabilities. Sections 101(1) and 102 of the Evidence Act Cap 6 refer. We turn to the issues.

# (i) Whether the respondent's agents violated Omona Martin's right to life

The right to life is protected by Article 22(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (hereinafter called "the Constitution") which provides as follows:

"No person shall be deprived of life intentionally except in the execution of a sentence passed in a fair trial by a court of competent jurisdiction in respect of a criminal offence under the laws of Uganda, and the conviction and sentence have been confirmed by the highest appellate court".

The right to life is further protected by various regional and international human rights instruments to which Uganda is signatory. Under Article 4 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR):

"Human beings are inviolable. Every living being shall be entitled to respect for his life and integrity of his person. No one may be arbitrarily deprived of this right".

Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Peoples Rights (ICCPR) provides:

"Every human being has the inherent right to life. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life".

For Okwera Alex to establish a case of violation of Omona Martin's right to life against the respondent he had to prove that the respondent's agents caused the death of Omona, and did so intentionally.

$\overline{4}$

Okwera did not personally witness the death of Omona. He merely learnt of the said death while at his home at Holy Rosary, Gulu. The record of proceedings does not reveal the person who broke this sad news to him.

But the totality of the evidence on file shows that the period in issue was a period of insurgency in Northern Uganda. Omona Martin, who was a peasant residing in an Internally Displaced Peoples (IDP) camp in Layibi, Gulu, was going to Patiko on 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2006 to buy food. He made a stopover at Chopee Trading Center to buy a bottle of soda. He pulled out a U. Shs.50,000 note to pay for the soda. This shocked the shop attendant who called the soldiers nearby to establish if Omona was not a rebel collaborator. The soldiers immediately started beating Omona, which resulted into his death. They dumped his body along the roadside near Chopee army detache.

CW2 Amalia Akumu, testified that on the date in issue at around 8 am she, and one Akello Alice, went to Chopee Trading Centre upon hearing somebody crying. Omona was her nephew; to be exact, her sister's son. She said that the person crying was Omona. She saw him surrounded by 7 UPDF soldiers. She added as follows:

> "The soldiers said that he was a rebel. I insisted that he was not. His hands had been tied from behind his back. The soldiers were kicking

> > $\mathsf{S}$

and boxing him. I requested the soldiers to hand him over to me. They said they would not harm him. They chased all of us away".

Akumu said that the next day her brother Ojang saw his body near a She and Omona's mother reported the matter to Gulu Police school. Station.

Akumu was cross-examined by Ms. Elizabeth Nyakwebara, learned Counsel for the respondent. Ms. Nyakwebara's 6 questions centered around identification of the culprits, and whether Akumu was present when Omona's body was carried away from the scene of crime. To these Akumu answered that the UPDF soldiers were wearing "green uniform", and that she did not see the body being lifted from the scene, but saw it in a motor vehicle.

In our view Akumu's testimony was truthful and remained undisturbed by the cross-examination. More so, what is of material importance to us is how Omona died and not how his body was handled thereafter.

CW3, Lotwal Vincent Oryem, was with Omona at Chopee Trading Centre but left just as Omona was starting to take his soda. He said the next day he saw Omona's body along the road near Chopee detache.

$\mathbf{6}$

CW4, Dr. Omona Otto Charles did the postmortem on Omona's body on the request of Detective Assistant Inspector of Police (D/AIP) Ojok Bonnan of Gulu Police Station. The postmortem was carried out at the scene on 3<sup>rd</sup> February 2006. The body was that of an adult male person. Dr. Otto told the tribunal as follows:

"The body was lying on open ground near a school compound. The clothing was soiled with dust. The physical appearance of the body There were superficial bruises on the left thigh, was healthy. shoulder, buttocks and right side of the chest. On opening the body for internal examination, the 9<sup>th</sup>, 10<sup>th</sup>, 11<sup>th</sup> and 12<sup>th</sup> ribs of the right side of the chest were fractured. The liver and organs were lacerated".

Dr. Otto went on as follows:

"I concluded that the cause of death was internal hemorrhage secondary to fractured ribs and lacerated liver due to trauma. The most likely weapon used was a blunt object".

The postmortem report was tendered in evidence as "Exhibit C1".

$\overline{7}$ On cross-examination by Mr. Shaffi Amuru, learned Counsel for the respondent. Dr. Otto said that he was able to reach a conclusion that Omona died within 24 hours after the injuries were inflicted on him.

We accept Dr. Otto's evidence as credible and truthful. At the time of testifying before the tribunal Dr. Otto was a 65 year old Doctor and Surgeon of immense experience in private and Government hospitals both in Uganda and overseas. We have no reason to doubt his evidence.

It is our considered view that the complainant has proved on the balance of probabilities that UPDF soldiers beat and killed Omona Martin. They suspected him to be a rebel or a rebel sympathizer. Although Okwera did not personally witness the killing of his father, his 3 witnesses Amalia Akumu, Lotwal Vincent and Dr. Otto nailed it for him.

Akumu saw Omona with his hands tied behind his back being beaten by 7 UPDF soldiers. She did not see him breathe his last but the fact that by the morning of 3<sup>rd</sup> February 2006 he was dead, we can reasonably conclude that the UPDF soldiers killed him. More so, she left the scene when they were still beating him. Lotwal placed Omona near the scene – Chopee Trading Centre. He left him drinking soda. By then, the shopkeeper had already beckoned the soldiers of the presence of a "likely" rebel" at his shop.

$\mathbf{8}$

Dr. Otto's findings upon examining Omona's body suited the description by Akumu of his torture by the soldiers. Akumu said she saw 7 soldiers kick and box Omona. She left as they were still beating him. Dr. Otto found that Omona had suffered broken ribs and rapture of internal organs, and that a blunt object had been used in inflicting on him those injuries. These are the injuries reasonably expected to result from 7 soldiers viciously beating one helpless civilian man. Dr. Otto also saw dust and bruises on Omona's body. Again the dust most likely came off their shoes as they kicked him as described by Akumu. He was also confident that Omona's death occurred within 24 hours after he was brutally beaten.

All the 3 testimonies neatly fitted into each other. We have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the prosecution evidence, more so, there was no other evidence to counter it, the respondent having failed to call any defence witness, and even failed to file submissions in rebuttal thereof.

The intentional killing of Omona Martin by UPDF soldiers on the 2<sup>nd</sup> February 2006 amounted to violation of his right to life. During the material time the said soldiers were acting in the course of their employment as servants of the state. The respondent is vicariously liable for their actions.

Wherefore, we resolve the first issue in the affirmative.

$\overline{9}$

## (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation

Having held as hereinabove, the complainant is entitled to compensation by way of general damages; Articles 50, and 53(2) of the Constitution refer. The general damages will be paid to Okwera on behalf of the estate of the late Omona Martin. We proceed to assess the same.

$\mathcal{A}_{\frac{1}{2}}$

Omona Martin died a brutal death. The agony he went through during his last hours on earth is tough to imagine. Omona left his home with intention of going to Patiko to buy food. He never reached there. His "mistake" was entering that shop in Chopee Trading Centre to buy a soda. In a way Omona died because of his low social status. As a humble peasant in an IDP camp in Layibi, more so, during insurgency, he was not supposed to have U. Shs.50,000=. Pulling out a U. Shs.50,000= shocked the shopkeeper and also the soldiers. Apparently a man like Omona could only posses U. Shs.50,000= if Kony had given it to him! That was the beginning of his ordeal.

Omona was viciously and brutally attacked, kicked and boxed by 7 UPDF soldiers until he became lifeless. The actions of the UPDF soldiers were intentional, deliberate, sadistic, cruel, oppressive, barbaric, arbitrary, dehumanizing, arrogant, wanton, criminal and impossible to justify. The UPDF presence was strengthened in Northern Uganda precisely to protect civilians from a demented terror group – the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). The brutal actions they visited on Omona were therefore the exact opposite of the purpose for which they had been heavily deployed in this region. Even if it were true that Omona was possibly a rebel or rebel sympathizer, (there was no evidence to that effect), he ought to have been arrested and taken to court and tried, instead of being summarily brutally lynched. The soldiers acted with impunity and utter disregard for human life. This tribunal must send out a message that acts of impunity will not be tolerated.

The right to life is the most important right without which all other rights and freedoms cannot be enjoyed. Death is final and permanently closes the curtain on one's services to his family and friends. Omona's children; Okwera Alex, Oyet Vincent, Kipwola Monica, Atimango Fiona and Laker Julie were permanently deprived of a father. His wives Ayat Esther and Akello Fildia were permanently separated from their companion, friend, husband, and comforter.

For purposes of this tribunal, the social status of Omona is not a factor in computation of damages to be awarded to his family. The life of a poor man, whose possession of U. Shs.50,000= shocks the rich, is as important as the life of a rich man. Both the poor and rich deserve equal protection of the law. Article $21(1)$ of the Constitution refers.

We want to remind the UPDF of their obligation to respect human rights and freedoms in the performance of their work. Article 221 of the Constitution refers.

$\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$

$\mathbf{v}_{\mathbf{z}_\ell}$

$\overline{I}$ n consideration $\mathbf{f}$ $\overline{a}$ the above circumstances, $we$ deem U. Shs.60,000,000= (Sixty Million Shillings) adequate compensation to the estate of the late Omona Martin, to be managed by Okwera Alex, in consultation with all the beneficiaries; Ayat Esther, Akello Fildia, Oyet Vincent, Kipwola Monica, Atimango Fiona and Laker Julie.

## **ORDER:**

- The complaint is allowed. $1.$ - The respondent is ordered to pay the complainant U. Shs.60,000,000 $=$ $2.$ (Sixty Million Shillings) as general damages for violation of Omona Martin's right to life. - The U. Shs.60,000,000= will carry interest at court rate from the date $\overline{3}$ . hereof until payment in full.

Either party dissatisfied with this decision may appeal to the High Court of Uganda within 30 days from the date hereof.

DATED at Gulu this ....................................

HON. MARIAM WANGADYA

HON. SIMEO MUWANGA NSUBUGA

HON. JACKLET ATUHAIRE **RWABUKURUKURU**

HON. SHIFRAH LUKWAGO

M. CA. H. O.<br>CHAIRPERSON

COMMISSIONER

**COMMISSIONER**

**MISSIONER** COM