In a significant court ruling on 7th June 2023, Wednesday, at the Chief Magistrate Court Buganda Road/Utility Court in Kampala, Uganda, Niwamazima Onensmus faced charges of malicious damage, tampering with works, and threatening violence in the case of Uganda vs. Niwamazima Onensmus CRB: 2337/2022. The prosecution was represented by Aciro Evelyn, a security officer, and Bongomin Emmanuel, in charge of court processes.
The case revolved around an incident that occurred on 26th December 2022, when Niwamazima Onensmus, residing in Nakasero Hill, Kampala district, damaged a manhole belonging to the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) and made threats against Police Officer No. 77534, PC Okonye Ronald.
The charges brought against Niwamazima Onensmus were as follows:
- Malicious Damage, according to section 335 (1) of the Penal Code Act Cap 120.
- Tampering with Works, under section 100 of the Water Act Cap 152.
- Threatening Violence, as stated in section 81(a) of the Penal Code Act Cap 120.
The court proceedings took place before H/W Kyoshabire Caroline in Court 7, with State Prosecutor Nambafa Martin representing the prosecution. Niwamazima Onensmus, the accused, was present during the trial.
During the proceedings, the state prosecutor made two key prayers to the court. Firstly, he urged the court to impose a deterrent punishment on the accused to serve as a lesson to others. Secondly, he emphasized that the accused had displayed a complete disregard for the law by resorting to violence against a police officer, necessitating a stern punishment.
In response, Niwamazima Onensmus presented his prayers to the court. He requested forgiveness, explaining that his actions were driven by desperation for livelihood. He further claimed that it was his first offense and promised to return to his village and engage in farming if given a second chance.
The court attentively considered the prayers of both the convict and the state prosecutor. However, the court observed that the accused had a history of similar behavior, showed no remorse, and had subjected the court to the entire trial process.
Consequently, the court delivered its judgment, sentencing the convict to a total of two years’ imprisonment. The breakdown of the sentence is as follows:
Count 1: Malicious Damage to Property – Guilty. The accused was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.
Count 2: Tampering with Works – Guilty. The accused received a six-month prison sentence.
Count 3: Threatening Violence – Guilty. The accused was given a one-year prison sentence.
It is important to note that all the sentences will run concurrently, meaning the convict will serve a total of two years in prison for the multiple offenses committed.
The court’s decision sends a strong message to deter similar acts of violence and vandalism, emphasizing the importance of respecting public infrastructure and the rule of law. The case serves as a reminder that actions have consequences and that society expects individuals to uphold the principles of legality and civility
