How Judgement in Car bond boss Ssebuwufu impacts on Police testimonies

By Chronicles Nyakato

In a pivotal decision, the Supreme Court of Uganda has upheld the conviction of Sebuwufu Muhammed and others, stressing the superiority of courtroom testimony over police statements when contradictions arise.

The ruling, delivered by a panel of Justices including Mwondha, Tibatemwa, Tuhaise, Chibita, and Musota, brings clarity to a long-debated legal principle that will shape future court proceedings.

At the heart of the appeal was the argument presented by Sebuwufu's counsel that key witnesses (PW1, PW2, and PW3) had provided differing versions of events in their police statements compared to their testimonies in court.

The defence contended that these contradictions should have cast doubt on the credibility of the witnesses, weakening the prosecution’s case. However, the court reaffirmed its position that contradictions between police statements and courtroom testimony do not automatically discredit a witness.

Citing Chemonges Fred vs Uganda (SCCA No. 12 of 2001), the court emphasised that a witness’s testimony, once subjected to cross-examination, holds greater weight than a police statement, which remains untested.

“It is well established that where a police statement is used to impeach the credibility of a witness and such statement is proved to be contradictory to his testimony, the court will always prefer the witness’ evidence which is tested by cross-examination,” the judgment read.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscored the central role of cross-examination in testing the veracity of a witness’s account. Unlike police statements, courtroom testimony is subject to rigorous scrutiny by both the prosecution and defence.

This process allows for the identification of inconsistencies and provides a platform for challenging the truthfulness of the evidence. As such, courts prefer to rely on testimonies that have been through this process.

The Court of Appeal, which had previously heard the case, had exhaustively reviewed the evidence and found no reason to discredit the witnesses’ testimony despite discrepancies with their police statements.

The Supreme Court concurred, stating that there was no new evidence to overturn the findings of both lower courts.

In a further attempt to absolve himself, Sebuwufu argued that he was merely acting on the instructions of one Kiwanuka Sam alias "Damage" when arresting the deceased.

However, the court dismissed this claim, noting that the doctrine of common intention applied in this case. This principle holds that all participants in the commission of a crime are equally culpable, regardless of individual roles or directives.

Additionally, Sebuwufu’s defence of an alibi, in which he claimed he was not present at the crime scene, was swiftly dismantled by the prosecution’s evidence, which included compelling witness testimony linking him to the crime.

The Supreme Court’s ruling not only upholds Sebuwufu’s conviction but also reinforces a crucial legal standard in Uganda's judicial system.

The preference for cross-examined courtroom testimony over police statements ensures that the credibility of witnesses is tested in the most transparent and robust manner, safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.

This decision will likely serve as a guiding precedent in future cases, affirming the importance of courtroom scrutiny in establishing the truth.