A local mob attacked and murdered a surveyor on August 16, 2009 in the village of Mukuku, Uganda. This example of mob justice stems from the country’s poor property-recording system, which fails to keep proper documentation, allowing outsiders to make claims to land. Fearing the loss of their homes, locals are distrustful of anyone coming to review land parcels and sometimes grow violent towards surveyors. After the murder, arrests were not made until almost two months later on October 9. Military troops were sent to make arrests, arriving at the village in the middle of the night. They indiscriminately pulled 17 people from their homes. They then had another victim who had escaped the mob attack review the roundup. One of the people arrested was a boy named Kemba Henry. I interviewed him at the Naguru Children’s Remand Home (a prison for children ages 13-17) in early July as part of a project undertaken by Pepperdine professors, alumni, and law students to provide legal services to these children. After interviewing the children, we compiled briefs for use by the judge, prosecution, and defense so that the children could be dealt with fairly and expeditiously. Kemba’s first question for us was, “Why am I here?” As it turned out, the eyewitness had never identified him as a participant and there was no evidence against him. Ndiwe Geoffrey and Katongole Charles were also boys from the village who were rounded up, but like Kemba, they were never indentified by the witness. At the time we interviewed the boys, it had been almost nine months since their arrest. They were never informed of the charges against them, they had no access to a lawyer, and they had no way of contacting their parents or relatives. Because plea bargaining is an emerging practice in Uganda, every case goes to trial. Nearly one year after the murder occurred, the state was finally ready for trial. The trouble was, there was nothing to assess for these three boys. A look at the case file only revealed that these boys had never been picked out of the lineup, that there was no other evidence against them, and that their only crime was being a resident of a village where a murder had occurred two months before their arrest.
Of the three boys, Kemba was the most confused, explaining to us that he had moved to the village to live with his uncle in late September, more than a month after the murder took place. Upon reviewing the prosecution’s file, I found that someone in their office finally determined the absence of evidence in May 2010 and amended the indictment, removing the three boys from the list of those charged. This was never conveyed to the remand home, to
adult defendants to wait three or more years before any determination is made as to the charges brought against them. While the law in writing calls for a standard of “innocent until proven guilty” and “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the way in which the law operates in practice is different. This is greatly due to cultural, historical, and financial factors. The standards for unreasonable detention, for example, are different due largely to underfunding, but also because the system
There is reason for hope…much of what I saw during the juvenile session was inspiring. a judge, or to the three boys, so they were forced to wait another month and a half for this to be addressed by the court. When the boys’ case was called on the first day of the session, the prosecutor stated, “The state has decided not to press charges.” The judge informed the boys that they were to be released. The three boys turned to look at us with wide-eyed stares and smiles. They believed that we had done something very special for them. Ndiwe Geoffrey stood closest to me and said, “It is okay now.” Their first reaction was happiness and thankfulness, not frustration and anger at being held without cause. The truth is, compared to most criminal defendants in Uganda, this timeline is not abnormal. It is not uncommon for 17
operates in a prosecution-friendly manner. Although much of this may sound disheartening, there is reason for hope. Many of the judges I worked with closely over the summer indicated great eagerness in developing ways to make the criminal process more efficient. And much of what I saw during the juvenile session was inspiring. The briefs we compiled were utilized and helped ensure that the children were at least granted the bail that they were entitled to under law. Of the 17 children in the juvenile session, at least half were granted bail. Twelve of the 17 cases were disposed of during a one-month session. In only a few months in Uganda, I met so many people filled with kindness and passion that I have great hope for the law’s future there. It was a great privilege to serve these people by helping their system serve them. L AW. P E P P E R D I N E . E D U