Army veteran’s tip leads detectives to armed robbers

At about 3pm, Kawaala Police Post received a case that an aggravated robbery case had been committed at a residence of John Mugarura at Kirinya-Bigo in Mutundwe, a Kampala suburb on June 8, 2012. Mugarura, the complainant, told police that robbers armed with a machete and two heavy stones had gained access to his compound, while he was away, and attacked his wife, Josephine Ayebare. Mugarura said the three robbers beat up Ayebare then tied her up before carrying out the robbery. They used the heavy stones to hit open a door of a room where cash to the tune of Uganda Shs60m, Tanzanian Shs110, 000 and Kenyan Shs2, 200 had been kept. The robbers picked all the money before sweeping the room clean. They went away with his TV set, a radio, a computer, DVD player, three mobile phones (Nokia 1600, Nokia CZ and Techo), and a log book of motor vehicle. Kawaala Police Post detectives were puzzled that the incident of such magnitude can be done during day time without any alarm. To their surprise, it had also happened in a residential area and any alarm could have easily attracted help. They sought an interview with Ayebare to have a better understanding of what happened. Ayebare told them that the thugs suddenly ambushed her with a machete. She told detective that she was overwhelmed and couldn’t make an alarm because her attackers had warned her of the consequences. Ayebare said her attackers tied her with a rope before carrying out the robbery. Ayebare described in details how the attackers looked like. She said the group was led by a one-eyed man. The second attacker had a rare style of beard and the third had a mark on the forehead that indicated that he could have been a Muslim. She said none of the suspects had covered his face. Moments after the thugs had left, Ayebare secured her freedom. Then police were involved. Scene of Crime Officers (SOCOs) rushed to the scene to pick any exhibits or evidence the suspect could have left behind. The SOCOs’ findings didn’t help much to aid investigations. Kawala detectives’ first line of investigation was that it was an inside job since the robbers were so specific in their target. Investigators didn’t get any headway. The case stalled.

Weeks passed as one lead after another collapsed. The file remained open without any suspect or exhibit recovered. The detective’s vigor dropped. A month or so when the file had gathered inches of dust on the shelf, a light of hope was seen. A UPDF veteran, Paul Ssebuggwawo, came with tip to officers at Nateete Police Station. Ssebuggwawo had overheard a resident, Badiru Kiwanuka bragging that he had executed a mission in which he made a lot of money. Kiwanuka gave details of the exact residence where the crime was committed. Ssebuggwawo couldn’t allow such important details to go unreported. He tipped police officers.

Detective Constable Jennifer Nandia was assigned to follow up the case. Nandia acted fast. She recorded

Ssebuggwawo’s statement that set off a new investigation. She also sent a team directed by Ssebuggwawo to where Kiwanuka was and he was arrested and taken to Nateete Police Station. During interrogation, Kiwanuka was uncooperative. He told Nandia that he wasn’t in Mutundwe on the day the crime was committed. Kiwanuka was sure the detectives didn’t have evidence implicating him in the robbery since all his accomplices had pledged never to reveal details to anyone. To his shock, Nandia told him about his role in the crime.

The next morning, Nandia invited Ayebare at the police station for an identification parade. In the identification parade, Kiwanuka was put among several people. Ayebare was asked to point at the person who could have attacked her at home. She pointed out Kiwanuka. She was able to give details of his role during the robbery. Kiwanuka was a one-eyed man. Ayebare said Kiwanuka was the one who had a machete and gave orders to the other two thugs. A new lead had borne Nandia fruits. She tasked Kiwanuka to take her to his home for a search. After the search, they didn’t recover any exhibits. Detectives talked to the neighbors whether they knew people with nicknames Kalevu and soldier, who visit Kiwanuka. The neighbors said they hear about the names. Nandia asked them if they knew their whereabouts. Unfortunately, none had his contact or knew their whereabouts. Nandia returned to her station with her suspect. She tasked Kiwanuka to reveal the whereabouts of his accomplices and the money that was robbed. Kiwanuka had finally been trapped. He agreed to be cooperative.

Confession

He told Nandia how the robbery was planned and executed. Nandia, being at the rank of a constable, she sought the help of an officer at the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police (AIP), who is allowed by law to record a charge and caution statement from a suspect. Detective/AIP Rose Musenero sat down Kiwanuka for his statement. Kiwanuka said the robbery was planned and executed by him, Hussien Kauma and Badiru Mutesasira. “We climbed the perimeter wall of the victim and landed on the ground. We then tied her

(Ayebare) and opened the door. We picked the money and fled,” Kiwanuka said. Kiwanuka said after taking the money and appliances, he took his share of Shs13m and the other got the rest. He said he used the money to buy two motorcycles, which he hires out. Detective Nandia sent officers who impounded the motorcycles and arrested the cyclists. As Nandia was preparing to hunt for the identified suspects, another chance opened up. A group of men visited the police to rescue the motorcyclists who had been arrested supposedly on traffic offences. One of them identified himself as Hussein Kauma. Kauma never left the police station. He was quizzed about the robbery case in Mutundwe. He denied his involvement. He hadn’t got information that

Kiwanuka had been detained at Nateete Police Station. Kiwanuka was moved from the cell and he identified Kauma as his associate in the crime. Ayebare was again brought and a suspect’s parade in which Kauma was lined up with others was done. She was able to identify Kauma as one of the attackers. Kauma was also taken for a search. Neither the machete used in the robbery nor any other stolen items were recovered.

The rumor of the arrest of Kauma reached Badiru Mutesasira. He went into hiding. Detectives had to look for him. Finally, he was sighted in a bar and detectives raided it and arrested him. Mutesasira also denied participating in the crime. But the detectives had already got an admission from the prime suspect. Ayebare also identified Mutesasira as the third attacker. All the suspects had already spent the money and sold off the electronics. After piecing up all the evidence, Nandia submitted the file to the State Attorney. Kiwanuka,

Kauma and Mutesasira were presented in court on charges of robbery, but the file was later amended to aggravated robbery.

Ruling

The accused, including Kiwanuka, who had made an admission, denied the charges. Their strongest point in their defense was that the prosecutor had not brought in court the weapon the victim claimed they used in the said offence. They said the complainant wanted to frame them since he didn’t provide any receipt for any of the items he claimed was robbed. Justice Joseph Murangira crushed their defense, saying that the evidence presented put them at the scene of crime. He convicted the trio of aggravated robbery and sentenced each to 17 years in jail.

The Penal Code Act cap 120(as amended) provides for Aggravated Robbery under section 286(2) states that where at the time of or immediately before or immediately after the time of robbery, an offender is in possession of a deadly weapon or causes death or grievous harm to any person, the offender or any other person jointly concerned in committing the robbery shall on conviction by High court be liable to suffer death.

Section 286(3) of the same Act defines a deadly weapon to include an instrument made or adapted for shooting, stabbing or cutting and any imitation of such an instrument which when used for offensive purposes is capable of causing death or grievous harm.

For prosecution to secure a conviction on Aggravated robbery, there must be proof that there was a theft of property belonging to the victim, use of violence or threat of use of violence during the theft, possession of a deadly weapon during the theft and that the accused participated in the theft.

In such an instance for impartial lawyers to assist you;

Step 1

They would advise you to report the incident at the nearest police station.

Step 2

They would advise the Police to conduct thorough investigations and ensure that all relevant investigative techniques are promptly carried out.

Step 3

They would advise the DPP to adduce strong evidence to place the accused at the scene of the crime to discredit his alibi. This is based on the fact that the Burden of Proof is on the Prosecution to prove all the elements of the offence to the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.