Is Identification parade important as foundation of evidence?

By Chronicles Nyakato
Two police officers, Sgt. Baluku Samuel and PC Walusa Joshua, have lost their appeal after the Supreme Court upheld their conviction in a case involving misappropriated funds.
Keep Reading
The officers had argued that their trial was unfair because the prosecution didn’t properly conduct an identification parade.
But the judges weren’t convinced. They ruled that, while the identification parade wasn’t handled correctly, there was still enough solid evidence linking the two officers to the crime.
"We’re satisfied that the officers were clearly identified at the scene of the crime, and their defense of not being there doesn’t hold up," the justices said.
They pointed out that multiple witnesses placed the officers at the scene, making the need for an identification parade unnecessary in this case.
The court also referenced an earlier case, Mulindwa Samuel v. Uganda, where it was decided that the lack of an identification parade wouldn’t necessarily affect a conviction if there’s other strong evidence.
The case dates back to a 2021 police operation where the two officers were accused of stealing recovered money. Even though the identification parade wasn’t properly conducted, the evidence presented by witnesses was enough to get a conviction in both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.
In their ruling, the Supreme Court added, "The failure to conduct an identification parade didn’t cause any injustice."
As a result, Sgt. Baluku and PC Walusa will continue to serve their sentences as initially ruled by the lower courts.