The General Court Martial has sentenced two former army informers to death for their roles in orchestrating two staged suicide bombings that claimed the lives of two women in Kampala, rejecting pleas for leniency despite their admission of guilt.
Adil Walusansa and Hamza Lyavala were handed the death penalty on Wednesday after the military court found that their participation in the operations that killed Sumaya Byaruhanga and Azatu Sawiya was deliberate, carefully planned and exceptionally grave.
In a detailed sentencing decision delivered by court chairman Brig Richard Tukacungurwa, the court said the circumstances surrounding the murders placed them among the “rarest of the rare” cases deserving capital punishment.
The two had pleaded guilty to the murder charges, while their co-accused, Lt Col Ephraim Byaruhanga, denied the charges.
Although the court acknowledged that Walusansa and Lyavala were first-time offenders who had admitted responsibility, it ruled that their guilty pleas and personal circumstances could not outweigh the brutality and planning involved in the killings.
“This court is satisfied that the mitigating factors of the convicts being first-time offenders and having pleaded guilty are outweighed by the severity of these crimes,” Brig Tukacungurwa ruled.
The court heard that the first victim, Sumaya Byaruhanga, died after an explosive device allegedly given to her by the convicts detonated near Munyonyo in June 2025.
The second victim, Azatu Sawiya, was killed in a separate operation at Kalerwe Market on June 21, 2025.
According to the prosecution’s account adopted by the court, the two convicts were not merely accomplices who happened to be at the scenes but actively participated in planning and coordinating the operations that led to the deaths.
In Sawiya’s case, the court found that Walusansa had taken her around Kalerwe to conduct reconnaissance before handing her one of the two explosive devices he was allegedly carrying. Lyavala, meanwhile, was found to have been physically present as the operation was being coordinated.
The court said the two women were used in what it described as fake suicide missions, in which the explosives were deliberately delivered and detonated under circumstances that resulted in their deaths.
Beyond the actual delivery of the explosives, the court cited the convicts’ involvement in transporting the victims, renting houses, purchasing clothes and coordinating with other individuals involved in the operations.
The court also considered their previous work as state informers on Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) activities but said this did not diminish their responsibility for the murders.
Defence pleas rejected
Their lawyers cited several mitigating circumstances, including their status as first-time offenders, guilty pleas, family responsibilities, cooperation with court and previous contributions to counterterrorism operations.
However, Brig Tukacungurwa said the court could not allow these considerations to overshadow the seriousness of the crimes.
He explained that although admitting guilt ordinarily demonstrates remorse and attracts a reduction in sentence, such an admission does not automatically protect an offender from the maximum punishment.
“While a plea of guilty would demand a substantial reduction in the sentence as an expression of remorse, it is straightforward that a guilty plea does not operate as an automatic shield against the ultimate penalty of law when the crime committed is uniquely severe,” he said.
The chairman added that sentencing was not limited to rehabilitating offenders but also served to hold them accountable, condemn criminal conduct and deter others from committing similar offences.
“The purpose of sentencing is not only rehabilitation; it must also serve the aims of retribution, public denunciation and robust deterrence,” he ruled.
Court invokes rarest of the rare doctrine
In arriving at the death sentence, the military court considered previous Ugandan judicial decisions on discretionary capital punishment, alongside the Indian Supreme Court decision in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980).
The Indian ruling established the rarest of the rare doctrine, which requires courts to reserve capital punishment for exceptionally grave offences after carefully weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
Brig Tukacungurwa said the court had examined the circumstances of the murders, sentencing guidelines and previous judicial decisions before concluding that the case met the threshold.
“In consideration of the undisputed facts of this case, aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the sentencing principles, guidelines, recent practices and cases, this court finds that the actions of the convicts placed this case within the category of the rarest of the rare cases,” he ruled.
He further argued that the convicts had demonstrated a permanent threat to human society, making the death penalty appropriate in the circumstances.
Brig Tukacungurwa said the court had examined the circumstances of the murders, sentencing guidelines and previous judicial decisions before concluding that the case met the threshold.
“In consideration of the undisputed facts of this case, aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as the sentencing principles, guidelines, recent practices and cases, this court finds that the actions of the convicts placed this case within the category of the rarest of the rare cases,” he ruled.
He further argued that the convicts had demonstrated a permanent threat to human society, making the death penalty appropriate in the circumstances.
“The death sentence is therefore justified to mirror the immense gravity of their actions,” he said.
The court subsequently sentenced each of the two convicts to death on the murder counts. Brig Tukacungurwa informed Walusansa and Lyavala of their right to appeal against the sentences if dissatisfied with the decision.
