Finding the evidence against Byaruhanga overwhelming, the court concluded that his appeal lacked merit. “We find no valid reason…to depart from the findings of the lower courts,” the justices ruled, adding that the appeal appeared to be a disguised challenge to the severity of the sentence, which is not permissible under the law.
The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction and 28-year sentence of Byaruhanga Alex for aggravated defilement, while sharply criticizing the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for failing to file submissions in response to the appeal despite clear court directives.
In their ruling, the justices expressed dismay at the DPP’s inaction. “Only the appellant filed written submissions. To date, the respondent has not filed any submission having been guided to file by 15th April, 2025,” the court noted.
The judges emphasized the importance of adhering to court timelines, particularly for government representatives, warning that such lapses undermine the administration of justice and the rule of law.
The panel—comprising Justices Lilian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Stephen Musota, and Christopher Madrama—nonetheless proceeded to determine the appeal on its merits.
Byaruhanga had challenged both his conviction and sentence, arguing that the victim’s failure to testify and the absence of an identification parade rendered the case invalid. However, the Supreme Court rejected these claims, affirming earlier decisions by the High Court and Court of Appeal.
The case stems from a 2015 incident in Nawanku Zone, Makindye Division, Kampala, where Byaruhanga was accused of defiling a six-year-old girl, the granddaughter of Margaret Bukirwa. Court records indicate that he lured the child with soda and cookies before later taking her away and defiling her. The child reported the incident to her grandmother the following day.
The High Court initially sentenced Byaruhanga to 32 years in prison, later reduced to 28 years after accounting for time spent on remand. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision, prompting the final appeal to the Supreme Court.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that a conviction can rest on circumstantial evidence where it forms a consistent and compelling chain pointing to the accused’s guilt. The justices held that the child’s immediate account to her grandmother, corroborated by other evidence, was both credible and sufficient.
They further ruled that a victim’s testimony, while important, is not always indispensable—particularly where the child is unable to testify due to age or potential trauma. Similarly, the court noted that the absence of an identification parade does not automatically invalidate a case, especially where witnesses were already familiar with the accused.
Finding the evidence against Byaruhanga overwhelming, the court concluded that his appeal lacked merit. “We find no valid reason…to depart from the findings of the lower courts,” the justices ruled, adding that the appeal appeared to be a disguised challenge to the severity of the sentence, which is not permissible under the law.
The conviction and 28-year sentence were therefore affirmed.
Director Arrested as 4-Year-Old Pupil Dies in School Hot Tea Incident