By Nasser Kayanja
The International Crimes Division of the High Court has ruled that three men accused of murdering former Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Namazzi Kagezi have a case to answer on the charge of murder, while dismissing the terrorism charge against them.
The accused—John Kibuuka alias Musa, John Massajjage alias Brian Mubiru, and Nasur Abdallah Mugonole—were ordered to enter their defence after the court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case capable of sustaining the murder charge.
However, the court acquitted the trio on the terrorism charge, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the essential legal ingredients required to support the offence.
Prosecutors had argued that Kagezi’s assassination on March 30, 2015, was intended to intimidate the public or compel the government to act for political, religious, social or economic reasons.
In its ruling, however, the court found that the evidence presented pointed instead to a contract killing motivated by financial gain, with the accused allegedly promised US$200,000 for carrying out the murder.
The court held that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence on the murder charge which, if left unchallenged, could result in a conviction.
In reaching its decision, the court relied on the testimony of 26 prosecution witnesses, including Daniel Kisekka Kiwanuka, a former co-accused who was convicted after entering into a plea bargain agreement with the State.
Kisekka testified that John Kibuuka was the gunman who fired the two shots that fatally wounded Kagezi.
The prosecution also tendered forensic telecommunications evidence indicating that mobile phone numbers linked to the accused were active in the Kiwatule area between 7:10 p.m. and 7:23 p.m., the period during which Kagezi was shot dead.
According to the court, the manner in which the attack was carried out demonstrated malice aforethought, noting that the assailants allegedly monitored Kagezi’s movements before shooting her at close range in the presence of her children.
Following the ruling, the court informed the accused of their rights at the defence stage, including the option to give sworn testimony, make an unsworn statement, call witnesses, or remain silent.
The case was adjourned to July 13–17, 2026, when the defence hearing is expected to commence.