On April 30, 2026, the High Court of Uganda, presided over by Justice Alice Komuhangi Khaukha at the Ggaba Community Church grounds, sentenced Christopher Okello Onyum to death by hanging for the murder of four toddlers at a Ggaba daycare center. It was a record-breaking marathon trial completed within one months.
The court found Okello guilty of four counts of murder, determining the attack on April 2, 2026, was premeditated, “brutal, heinous, and gruesome”. The judge classified the case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category, justifying the maximum penalty, despite the rare execution of capital “punishment” in Uganda.
Although Okello was sentenced to death and has less than a week to file an appeal, he cannot be executed immediately, even if he chooses not to appeal. Under Ugandan law, immediate execution is prevented by several mandatory procedures. Death sentences are automatically transmitted to the Supreme Court for confirmation, regardless of whether the convict appeals or not.
A death sentence involves a right of appeal through the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. it is also mandatory that every death sentence requires sanctioning by the President, advised by the Advisory Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy. Uganda has not executed a prisoner since April 1999 when Hajj Musa Sebirumbi was executed by hanging at Luzira Upper Prison after being found guilty of multiple counts of murder.
It is also important to note that under the “three-year rule,” if execution does not occur within three years of final appeal, the sentence must be commuted to life imprisonment. With few Justices of the Court of appeal and with a backlog of cases pending fixing and hearing, it is unlikely that Okello’s appeal will again be fast tracked. We can only pray that he lives to have his appeal heard.
I am personally aware that Okello’s action invoked emotions from the public, he is lucky to have left the scene of crime alive. However, the decision of court can be interpreted as having been a legal channel only to come up with a similar approach, death. Death is death irrespective of whether it is done through the due process of the law or mob action.
In whichever way you look at it, my view is that the death penalty no longer serves the purpose of deterrence for which it was intended. That is why I agree with the dissenting voices that the death penalty should be abolished. It is not a punishment but a form of revenge often used to appease the relative and friends of the victim as well as the general public.
The death penalty is defined as the state-sanctioned killing of a person for serious crimes such as murder. The practice is highly controversial, with proponents arguing it provides justice and deterrence, while opponents highlight human rights concerns, risks of executing innocent people, and disproportionate application. With bad leaders in future, the death penalty could be abused to the extent of eliminating potential or political opponents.
That is why I believe the death penalty should be abolished because it violates the fundamental right to life, is inhumane, and does not effectively deter crime. It risks executing innocent individuals who may not have the means to seek legal redress, is often applied unfairly, and causes immense mental anguish to prisoners and their families. I believe its abolition promotes human dignity and modernizes the criminal justice system in Uganda.
While preparing for this piece, I came across examples of convicts who were executed, only for evidence to later reveal their innocence. One of them was Huugjilt who was executed in China for rape and murder. Ten years later, the real murderer, a serial killer Zhao Zhihong, confessed to having committed the same crime. Huugjilt was posthumously exonerated.
Another case was that of Cameron Todd Willingham who was executed in Texas for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. Subsequent investigations by fire experts revealed that the evidence used to convict him was based on outdated, non-scientific theories and that there was no sufficient evidence to sustain the charge of arson.
But do we know the origins of the death penalty or we simply support it because it is in our law books. The punishment is deeply anchored in the old system of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth which found its way into the British legal system. By default, British laws were applied to Uganda primarily through the establishment of a protectorate in 1894, formalized by the 1902 Order in Council.
Whereas many countries still maintain the “punishment”, over 100 countries have abolished it all together while others have maintained the law but in a state of dormancy. Abolishing the death penalty is a global human rights goal, as capital punishment is increasingly recognized as a cruel, irreversible, and ineffective “punishment” that violates the right to life.
The death penalty is a legal, though rarely enforced, “punishment” in Uganda, primarily for capital offenses, with hangings officially permitted. While death sentences are still passed, there has been a de facto moratorium on executions since 1999, making it a retentionist state in law but abolitionist in practice.
Following the 2009 Supreme Court ruling in Susan Kigula & 417 Others, the mandatory death penalty was declared unconstitutional, allowing judge’s discretion in sentencing. Courts still issue death sentences like it was in the case of Christopher Okello. His “punishment” seems to have appeased the public but it leaves Okello with no lessons to learn.
The system of executing prisoners on death penalty in Uganda remains the primitive method of death by hanging yet developed countries have come up with options such as lethal injection, electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad, suffocation, and the emerging method of nitrogen hypoxia. A prisoner is allowed to choose from the available options.
As of recent reports, over 100 inmates remain on death row, thanks be to Museveni’s low appetite for signing execution orders. The 2009 Susan Kigula decision meant that a death sentence lapses and is automatically commuted to life imprisonment if the sentence is not carried out within three years of being confirmed by the Supreme.
Many human rights advocates believe that the death penalty remains a barrier to improving
human rights and there is absolutely no evidence to support such a claim from Uganda or any other country in the world. Indeed, the continuing frequent occurrence of crimes punishable by death strongly suggests that it has no deterrent effect whatsoever.
Moreover, the authorities’ reliance on the penalty appears to be a barrier to their recognizing the need for fundamental procedural reforms to prevent other human rights violations. Otherwise, why do we have the Ugandan Prisons Service which is established, equipped and trained to rehabilitate inmates irrespective of the offence for which they were convicted.
I agree with Mahatma Gandhi who opposed the death penalty, adhering to his philosophy of ahimsa (non-violence) and believing that state-sanctioned killing was morally wrong. He famously stated that “an eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind. I do not know why Christian religious leaders have remained tight lipped on the death penalty.
Wadada Rogers is a commentator on political, legal and social issues. wadroger@yahoo.ca
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
