Students Accused of Burning Kyotera School Have Case to Answer

The High Court in Masaka has ruled that two former students of St. Bernard’s Mmanya Secondary School in Kyotera district have a case to answer over the 2018 fire that destroyed the school’s boys’ dormitory and killed ten students. 

Edison Nio, a former Senior Four student, and Alex Mugarura, a chapati vendor who operated near the school in Mmanya Trading Centre, are facing 56 counts of arson, murder, attempted murder, attempted arson and malicious damage to property. 

Prosecution led by Senior State Attorney Deborah Itwau alleges that Nio, Mugarura and others still at large conspired to set the dormitory on fire on November 11, 2018, resulting in the deaths of ten students, injuries to several others and destruction of property. 

The Masaka High Court Senior Resident Judge Victoria Nakintu Katamba  ruled that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to require the two accused persons to defend themselves against the charges.

The ruling followed the closure of the prosecution case last week after 18 witnesses testified, including the school’s former head teacher, his deputy, police detectives, teachers and survivors of the fire. 

Justice Nakintu ruled that the court had examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and found grounds requiring the accused persons to enter their defense.

The judge noted that prosecution evidence indicated that Nio and other students were serving a one-month suspension at the time of the incident but, instead of returning to their respective homes, remained at a nearby trading centre where they were accommodated by Mugarura 

The judge also observed that the court had taken note of testimony from Ronald Nsubuga, the former school head teacher, who claimed that he had received intelligence that Nio and others were planning to retaliate against the school following their suspension. 

Although the accused persons denied involvement in the crime, Justice Nakintu said the evidence before court raised questions that required them to provide an explanation in their defence.

The judge directed the two accused persons to prepare and present their defense at the earliest opportunity.

However, during the prosecution case, defence lawyer Sam Ssekyewa asked the court to acquit his clients, arguing that none of the prosecution witnesses had testified that they personally heard about the plans or saw them setting the dormitory on fire. Ssekyewa argues that his clients were victims of circumstances, saying they were arrested simply because they were on suspension when the fire occurred, which is not enough evidence to incriminate them. He also accuses police of ignoring other possible leads during their investigations and focusing largely on the students.

According to Ssekyewa, evidence presented during cross-examination suggested that the school was experiencing administrative conflicts involving the newly appointed head teacher and some members of staff.

He said the new head teacher had introduced sudden changes, including demotions of some teachers, which could have generated anger and contributed to the fire. 

The defense also intends to rely on a video clip allegedly recorded by the former Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI), in which a man purportedly confesses to being part of a group hired to burn the dormitory as part of a rivalry between two neighbouring schools.