Septic tank murder: The Brenda Karamuzi case [Part 3: The conviction]

A disturbing courtroom exhibit. A hoe displayed as the alleged murder weapon. A young woman found hidden in a septic tank. In this third episode of Brenda Karamuzi murder case, we hear the defence case, the closing submissions, Justice Rugadya-Atwooki's judgment of 13 August 2011, the Court of Appeal decision, and the latest verified status of Tonku's appeal.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:04

This is the New Vision CSI Crime Stories. You are listening to The Septic Tank Murder, the Brenda Karamozi Case, Part 3, The Defense Conviction, and the Fight for Appeal. When the High Court ruled that Thomas Nkurunjira, Elias Tonko, and Fred Sempega had a case to answer, the courtroom moved into a new phase. The prosecution had presented its evidence. Now the accused men had to respond. Tonko's defense was built around one central argument that the prosecution had failed to prove that he killed Brenda Caramuzi. His lawyer, John Barrenzi, told Justice Albert Rugardia at Woki that criminal responsibility could not be based on suspicion. The burden, he argued, remained entirely on the prosecution. The standard was proof beyond reasonable doubt. Barrenzi opened his final submissions by arguing that the entire case was surrounded by doubt. He reminded court that for a murder conviction, the prosecution had to prove three key elements. One, that a person had died unlawfully, two, that the killing was done with malice aforethought, and three, that the accused participated in the killing. The defense accepted that Brenda Karamouzi had died, but they argued that the state had failed to prove who was responsible. According to Tonku's account, Brenda had been his girlfriend around January 17th, 2010. She asked to stay at his residence for about a week. She allegedly told him she needed time away because friends she had been living with did not understand her situation. Tonku allowed her to stay. The defense said Brenda arrived at his home on January 18, 2010, where she met Tomku's friend Peter Cassade. Tonku maintained that he last spoke to and saw Brenda on January 22nd, 2010. After that, he claimed he also did not know where she was. Barenzi told court that there was no evidence describing Tonku as violent or capable of murder. He argued that the only evidence linking Tonku to the crime came from Fred Sempija. And according to the defense, Sempija's evidence was unreliable. The defense challenged Sempija's account and questioned why police had initially treated him as a state witness before later charging him as a suspect. They argued that Sempija had spent months directing suspicion away from himself while implicating Tonko. Berenzi accused investigators of focusing too quickly on Tonko because the body had been found at his residence. He argued that police had effectively decided Tonko was guilty before completing a proper investigation. The defense listed what it described as failures by investigators. They argued police had failed to properly process fingerprint evidence, examine the alleged murder weapon thoroughly, conduct toxicology tests, carry out DNA testing on same pager, examine whether either accused had injuries consistent with the struggle and fully investigate other possible suspects. The defense also questioned why some witnesses were not called. Among those mentioned were people including Marcy Passions, Aziz Kakosa, Victor Aisu, Nathan Mobiru, and others who had been involved in the investigation. Barenza argued that important evidence had been left unexplored. He also challenged the handling of exhibits. The prosecution had presented a hole as the possible murder weapon, but the defense argued that investigators failed to properly examine it for fingerprints. They said the same problem applied to other items linked to Brenda, including the handbags recovered from Tonku's residence. According to the defense, these items had soft surfaces that could have preserved fingerprints. If properly examined, Barenzi argued they might have helped identify the real offender. The defense also relied heavily on Tonku's alibi. Barrenzi told court that Tonku had raised his defense immediately after Brenda's body was discovered. Tonku said he had been with friends making funeral arrangements for their friend Ereas Kajimo, who had died in the United States. The defense called witnesses who supported parts of his account. They included friends who said they were with him at different locations, including pubs and a vigil connected to Kajimo's death. The defense argued that these witnesses created reasonable doubt. They said the prosecution had not placed Tonku at the scene of the murder. The lawyers also highlighted DNA evidence. They argued that although DNA testing showed blood stains belonged to Brenda, Thu's own DNA did not match the stains found on the exhibits. They questioned why Sempija's DNA had never been tested. In their view, the investigation had left court without convincing scientific evidence identifying the killer. Fred Sempija's lawyer, Janet Nakakande, also challenged the prosecution case. She argued that Sempija's position was different from the state's portrayal. She submitted that Sempija found Brenda already dead in Tonku's sitting room. His statement, recorded by Detective Joy Merinaku at Katwe Police Station on March 24, 2010, was at the center of the argument. However, the court had to determine whose account was more believable. After hearing all the evidence, Justice Albert Rugardia at Woki delivered the judgment. The court found Tonku guilty of murder. The judge accepted the prosecution's case that Brenda had been killed and that Tonku was responsible. On August 13th, 2011, the High Court sentenced Thomas Nkurunjira alias Tonku to death. Fred Sempija was convicted of being an accessory and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. During sentencing, Justice Rugardia Atwoki spoke strongly about the brutality of Brenda's death. He said the offense had been committed against a young woman who had gone to visit someone she believed was a friend and someone who could help her find a job opportunity. Instead, the judge said her life was violently taken. Justice Rugardia described the killing as brutal and said the court had to send a clear message that crime does not pay. He stated, Life is sacred and must be respected. Before sentence was passed, Tonku maintained his innocence. His lawyer told court that Tonku would not make mitigation submissions because he continued to reject the findings against him and intended to appeal. Justice Rugardia acknowledged Tonku's right to appeal, but he concluded that the circumstances of Brenda's death left no room for mercy. He sentenced Tonku to death. The conviction did not end the legal battle. Tonku appealed. At the Court of Appeal, his lawyers argued that the High Court had wrongly evaluated the evidence. They argued that the prosecution had failed to establish a motive for murder. They criticized the trial judge for relying on what they described as speculation rather than evidence. They argued that the judge had made assumptions about the relationship between Tomko and Brenda and about events that were not proved in court. They also maintained that the investigation had been weak and that Sempijger's evidence was unreliable. But the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. The appellate court held that the High Court had properly evaluated the evidence. It found that the conviction was supported by the evidence and that the sentence imposed was lawful. The appeal failed. The conviction and death sentence were upheld. After losing at the Court of Appeal, Tonco filed a notice of appeal to the Supreme Court. However, as reported by New Vision in its 2021 retrospective, the Supreme Court had not yet heard the appeal. The report stated that Tonco had reportedly not received the complete record of proceedings from the Court of Appeal, a document required for preparing the Supreme Court appeal. This became significant because Uganda's Supreme Court had previously ruled in 2009 that if a death sentence is not carried out within three years after confirmation by the highest appellate court, it automatically becomes life imprisonment. But because Tomku's sentence had not been confirmed by the Supreme Court, the rule had not been triggered. As of the latest publicly available information, there has been no reported Supreme Court judgment overturning Tomku's conviction or disposing of his appeal. The High Court conviction and the Court of Appeal decision therefore remain the operative rulings. For prosecutors, it was a murder solved through a chain of evidence. For Tomko's defense, it was a conviction built on doubt and an investigation that failed to find the true killer. But more than a decade later, the final chapter remains unfinished. The Supreme Court appeal remains the last legal appenant in the case of Thomas Nkurunjira Elias Tonko. You've been listening to the New Vision CSR, Crime Stories, The Septic Tank Murder, the Brenda Karamozi case.