The defence in the ongoing trial of Christopher Okello Onyum has asked court to consider mental illness as a key factor at the time the alleged offences were committed, arguing that a conviction without proper medical evaluation would amount to a miscarriage of justice. Defence lawyer Richard Kumbuga made the submissions, raising concerns about gaps […]
The defence in the ongoing trial of Christopher Okello Onyum has asked court to consider mental illness as a key factor at the time the alleged offences were committed, arguing that a conviction without proper medical evaluation would amount to a miscarriage of justice.
Defence lawyer Richard Kumbuga made the submissions, raising concerns about gaps in medical evidence, contradictions in prosecution testimony, and what he described as negligence at the crime scene.
Kumbuga told court that there is no medical record confirming the mental status of the accused between January and 2 April 2026, when the crime was allegedly committed.
He argued that available evidence instead points to a possible mental health episode during that period.
The defence cited: Testimony that the accused frequently carried painkillers such as diclofenac, Witness accounts indicating he suffered chronic pain, Evidence that he abandoned his residence in Kyanja and lived on the streets
Kumbuga argued that such behaviour is consistent with mental instability.
The defence relied heavily on testimony from prosecution witness PW12, a doctor from International Hospital Kampala, who acknowledged that the accused had:
A history of mental illness, Previous admission at Butabika National Referral Mental Hospital
The doctor further testified that: Sickle cell disease and chronic pain may contribute to mental instability, Painkillers can trigger or worsen mental health episodes
Symptoms such as hallucinations, incoherent speech, and unusual laughter are indicators of possible mental disturbance
Kumbuga told court that the accused had been observed laughing inappropriately during proceedings, behaviour he said supports the mental illness claim.
However, prosecution witness, police surgeon Dr. Nuwamanya Emmanuel, told court that a person experiencing mental illness can still perform normal activities such as:
Driving, Renting property, Carrying out financial transactions
This testimony was used to counter claims that the accused’s actions automatically prove mental incapacity.
The defence further argued that a proper medical assessment was never conducted, despite recommendations from medical personnel.
Kumbuga told court that: The accused spent 8 to 9 months at Butabika
A police officer, James Eserait, confirmed this in a witness statement
Despite this, no formal medical evaluation report was presented in court
He said ignoring this recommendation undermines the fairness of the trial.
Kumbuga also raised concerns about security lapses at the daycare centre where the crime occurred.
He cited prosecution witness PW6 who testified that: 66 children were present at the time, Only two caregivers were on duty instead of four, There was no security guard
No visitors’ register to track individuals entering the premises
The defence argued that such gaps point to institutional negligence, not individual criminal intent.
The defence also questioned the reliability of CCTV evidence, stating that:
Cameras at the scene were off during the time of the crime, Recording resumed after 12:13pm
Although the court accepted the prosecution’s explanation that there was a power outage, Kumbuga argued that the CCTV analyst was not qualified to explain the cause of the outage.
He also raised concerns about missing evidence, noting that:
Exhibits were reportedly handed to a detective identified as Ssemanda
The officer was never called to testify
Additionally, the defence pointed out that no fingerprints were lifted from the scene, arguing that this weakens the prosecution case and reinforces the principle of presumption of innocence.
Kumbuga warned that convicting the accused without fully addressing mental health concerns would set a dangerous legal precedent.
He argued that such a decision would not only affect the accused but also families dealing with mental illness, insisting that justice must be grounded in medical and legal certainty.
