Civilian Nathan Adome, previously dubbed a cattle rustler, walked free after the General Court Martial (GCM) at Makindye in Kampala overturned his 18-year imprisonment sentence. Adome, a cattle dealer, found himself in a tight spot when he was charged and convicted of cattle rustling by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) 3rd Division Court Martial in Moroto district on September 22, 2023.
Key Events in Adome’s Legal Saga
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 22, 2023 | Adome charged, pleads guilty, and is convicted |
| July 15, 2024 | Appeal hearing at the General Court Martial |
| July 15, 2024 | Sentence overturned, Adome set free |
Cattle rustling, a crime with deep roots in Uganda’s tumultuous history, carries a potential life sentence under Section 226 (1) (C) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 120. Dissatisfied with his lengthy sentence, Adome, through his lawyer Elizabeth Nyasingwa, appealed to the GCM, arguing that the trial court had erred in convicting and sentencing him, given he was not subject to military law and the charge sheet was defective.
The appeal was based on four grounds, including the fact that the trial court wrongfully tried Adome under military law and that the plea was ambiguous and the sentence excessively harsh. Adome’s defense contended that Section 119 (1) (h) of the UPDF Act, which subjects civilians to military law if found with army-exclusive equipment, did not apply to him since he possessed no such items.
Table: Legal Framework and Potential Penalties
| Section | Description | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Section 226 (1) (C) | Cattle Rustling | Life Imprisonment |
| Section 119 (1) (h) UPDF Act | Military Law for Civilians | Subject to military jurisdiction |
In a rebuttal, state prosecutor Captain Alex Rasto Mukhwana argued that Adome had indeed pleaded guilty and that the charges were correctly framed. He pointed out that Adome had admitted to using rifles in cattle raids, which justified his trial under the military law’s provisions.
Mukhwana asserted, “The appellant confessed to raiding 376 cows with 15 guns, placing his actions squarely within the scope of Section 119 (1) (h) of the UPDF Act. Thus, we request that the appeal be dismissed.”
Despite the prosecution’s fervent arguments, the General Court Martial, chaired by Brig. Gen. Robert Freeman Mugabe, found the defense’s points compelling. Mugabe noted that the facts presented did not justify subjecting Adome to military law and that the charge sheet was defective. He highlighted procedural errors, stating that each accused should have been charged separately, and the brief facts should have been read collectively.
Court’s Key Findings and Rulings
| Finding | Ruling |
|---|---|
| Misapplication of Military Law | Charge not applicable under military jurisdiction |
| Defective Charge Sheet | Each accused should be charged separately |
| Incorrect Procedural Practices | Brief facts should be collectively read |
| Appeal Decision | Conviction quashed, sentence set aside |
Mugabe concluded, “Given these substantial errors, this court cannot address other grounds raised. The appeal has merit, the conviction is quashed, and the sentence is set aside. The appellant is free unless held on other lawful charges.”
With this ruling, Adome’s 18-year sentence was erased, and he walked out of the courtroom a free man, pending any other legal entanglements.
