Jolly the maid deserved to be treated like a human
On Friday, August 25, 2017, Jolly Tumuheirwe baptised the “monster maid” by the public, when CCTV cameras at her workplace showed her pounding a hapless toddler with kicks, will regain her freedom from Luzira Women Prison.
There was outrage in November or December 2014 when social media together with mainstream television and print, showed the cruelty and hatred with which Jolly Tumuheirwe punched the infant. Due to public demand, Jolly was rushed to Grade 1 Magistrate at City Hall Court and charged with the offences of torture. First mistake. The court had no jurisdiction. Secondly, the definition of torture as per law would not fit the facts into the offence as created by Parliament.
The public was baying for Jolly’s blood. They demanded that she be charged with attempted murder. The DPP is a public office.
He must respond, naturally to the public interest. The public did not need a trial. The evidence was there for all to see. Jolly must face a life sentence.
I swam against the tide when I urged caution. “Hear the other side.” I implored. “Jolly is entitled to counsel,” I advised.
Jolly was such a curse, no decent lawyer would want to touch her case even with a long stick. The words of Francis Imbunga rung in my mind, ‘When the madness of an entire nation affects a solitary mind, it is not enough to say that a man is mad.’ For all the caution I urged, the counsel I gave, the public wondered, “does Rwakafuuzi have children?”. It was an awkward moment for me, too. Every case a counsel takes on is unique because you are dealing with different individuals, though the law is the same. I found that I had a lot to say to convince the public that something not damning could be said for Jolly. In the end, the DPP charged Jolly with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This carries a maximum sentence of five years.
The medical report in court showed that the baby had been psychologically traumatised. Now assault occasioning actual bodily harm relates to the bodily harm and not psychological harm. Without evidence of actual bodily harm, Jolly could only be charged with common assault, whose maximum sentence is one year.
But I thought raising that objection would be a technicality. Our Penal Code is behind times. It needs amendment.
And indeed Jolly had really physically brutalised this baby. So, I prayed court to award Jolly two years imprisonment. Court awarded her four years. With remission, she served about two years and eight months.
I visited Jolly last week. She said she was very sorry for what she did to the baby.
She asked me to ask her former boss to forgive her. She told me she learnt a lot through her punishment in jail and that she will always treat children with love. I asked her, why don’t you ask for forgiveness from your former bosses? She responded that she knows she cannot be forgiven. She said she wishes to disappear into oblivion to her village where her mother lives. She has no father.
She stopped school in Primary Five when her father died. People who saw the traumatic scene when Jolly was punching the baby up to today are bitter. I have sampled some opinions. Some think Jolly is not reformed and will continue to be a danger to children, including her own children. Some have said that Jolly has paid her debt to society and should be accepted back. Many still think the punishment was too light.
What we learn from Jolly’s case is that every person suspected of committing an offence should be accorded the rights guaranteed in the Constitution, to be presumed innocent, the right to counsel, and a sentence tempered with mercy. Criminals are a product of society. They are not from Mars, and those who have not been charged with offences, it is not always because they are innocent, may be someone forgave them, some escaped unnoticed or bribed their way out.
Mr Rwakafuuzi is human rights advocate
[email protected]
