Court concludes Dr Kizza Besigye rape trial

Court was of the opinion that her evidence had a number of contradictions, one of which was a contradiction between her self-recorded statement and her evidence in court. Court noted that in a previous case, an Appellate Court overturned a conviction for rape based on the inconsistency in the victim’s evidence at the police and at trial during the trial.

The Appellate Court observed that apart from the fact that the evidence which was led to prove the charge of rape came from the complainant alone, the evidence also appeared to be false. There was an apparent contradiction in her evidence and the statement she made at the police; the victim told the police that the rape took place on the bed, while in her evidence in court she said she was raped on the ground.

The prosecution, however, countered this argument by a previous decision of court where it was held that it is what a witness states in court should accept as the witness’ evidence because it is stated under oath and the defence has an opportunity of cross-examining the witness on it. 

What the witness says to the police is neither stated on oath nor is the witness cross-examined thereon by the defence, and it, therefore, cannot be equated to that witness’ evidence in court. Court this time round, in the Dr. Kiiza Besigye rape trial, declined to be persuaded by this argument.

Prosecution sought to corroborate the evidence of the victim (complainant) by that of the housemaid. Court observed that the housemaid had twice refused to talk to the investigating officers about her boss, the accused. She was then arrested and taken to a place that she referred to as the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence. Court noted that as she described her ordeal she broke down and cried.

Court further observed that after the housemaid was humiliated into submission she was rewarded with a house in one of the city suburbs and given a poultry business. To the defence the housemaid gave evidence in court against the doctor because she had been facilitated with the chicken business and a house. The Prosecution conceded that the witness was facilitated but this, to the prosecution, in reality was a resettlement package.

Court did not buy the argument of the prosecution and stopped short of calling it an arm-twisting tactics used to coerce the housemaid, equating it to fraud on part of the police. Court was forced to observe that the circumstances of the case suggested that there was an abuse of office by investigating officers.

The largeness of the property offered to the witness and the inadequacy of the alleged reasons for the offer raised a lot of doubts as to the real intentions of the State in giving the witness these properties.

To court the evidence of the housemaid was tinted and disgraceful and unworthy of credit and not free from suspicion and thereby lacking the corroboration that the prosecution sought. To court just as the evidence of the main complainant was suspect that of the housemaid was equally suspect.

Court next considered the evidence of the Director of Criminal Investigations of the Uganda Police. Her evidence showed that the first information in this case was recorded on 28th day of June, 2001.

However Prosecution had adduced evidence to show that Joanita Kyakuwa, the complainant in this case, lodged her complaint with the police on the 4th day of July 200, nearly a week after the first information about the case had been received. This, court concluded, was a weird anomaly.

The Director, in her evidence, admitted that the first information is ordinarily obtained from a complainant. In this case however the police, according to the Director, acted on a publication to commence investigations into the case. Court found this alarming that the Director of Criminal Investigations read something from a mere publication and did not interview any would be complainant to authenticate the publication and directed a junior officer to open a file against a newspaper created suspect.

The first information in the police file in respect to the case was certainly not on rape but to the effect that inquiries had been opened surrounding the allegation that Col. Dr. Kiiza Besigye, while acting as guardian to a one Kyakuwa Joanita, unlawfully infected her with HIV/AIDS when he well knew his status. The unfortunate incident was thought to have occurred between the years 1997 and 1999 in Kampala.

To Court here was a situation where a certain Col. Dr. Kiiza Besigye who had not been interviewed and who had not been medically examined was said to have infected an unknown complainant with HIV/AIDS. Court was to commend that it appeared that the Director of CID was gifted with an extra-sensory perception. There was no scientific evidence suggesting that Dr. Besigye or Kyakuwa was positive for the HIV, let alone that one must have infected the other.

The Prosecution conceded that there were a number of shortcomings in the way investigations were done or conducted in this case. This, to court, was an understatement. Court described the way the investigations were conducted and carried out as crude and amateurish and these apparently betrayed the intentions behind the case.

Court concluded that the evidence before it was inadequate to prove a debt, impotent to deprive a civil right, ridiculous for convicting the pettiest offence, scandalous if brought forward to support a charge of any grave character and monstrous if to ruin the honour of a man who offered himself as a candidate for the highest office of the country.

Court said, in no uncertain terms, that the prosecution had dismally failed to prove its case against the accused. The good doctor was accordingly acquitted and set free.