New details have emerged in the ongoing High Court proceedings on the murder of former senior prosecutor Joan Kagezi. During testimony this week, witness Nasur Abdallah Mugonole told the court that he was aware of a plan to target Kagezi after he was allegedly recruited to gather intelligence on individuals involved.
According to Mugonole’s testimony, his role was to collect information on people said to be part of planning the assassination and to report back to a person he identified only as “Green.” He did not provide further identifying details about “Green” during the session that was reported in court.
The most striking part of the testimony was the allegation about a meeting and an offer. Mugonole told the court that Kale Kayihura, the former Inspector General of Police, had allegedly offered Kagezi Shs 1 billion. The alleged purpose of the offer, he said, was to obtain documents that he claimed implicated Kayihura in violent activities and illegal firearms dealings.
The court heard that Kagezi rejected the offer. Mugonole testified that she told those who approached her that she would not take the money. He added that she stated her intention to hand the documents over to President Yoweri Museveni instead.
Kagezi was killed in March 2015 in Kiwatule, Kampala, while driving home. At the time she was leading prosecutions in terrorism-related cases, including files linked to the 2010 Kampala bombings. Her work put her at the center of several sensitive matters handled by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mugonole also made claims about Kagezi’s phone in the days before her death. He alleged that the phone was taken by a man he named as Calvin Jordan. According to the testimony, Jordan gained the family’s trust by presenting himself as interested in dating Kagezi’s daughter.
The witness further alleged that the phone was returned about three days later. He told the court that during that period a tracking device was allegedly installed on it. The stated purpose, according to the testimony, was to monitor Kagezi’s movements.
It is important to note that these are allegations made by one witness during court proceedings. They have not been proven in court. The High Court is still hearing evidence, and all parties will have an opportunity to test the claims through cross examination and by presenting other evidence.
Kale Kayihura served as Inspector General of Police from 2005 to 2018. He has previously denied various allegations made against him in other forums. As of this hearing, there has been no on-record response in court to these specific claims from Mugonole’s testimony.
Legal experts say that in criminal trials, allegations of motive and payment are closely examined. Courts typically look for supporting evidence such as documents, financial trails, phone records, and corroborating witness statements before drawing conclusions.
The reference to “documents implicating him in violent activities and illegal firearms dealings” raises questions that the prosecution may seek to explore further. If such documents existed, the court may ask where they are, who handled them, and whether they can be produced.
The allegation that Kagezi planned to hand materials to the President also speaks to the high stakes of the case. As a senior prosecutor, she handled files that touched on national security. Her colleagues have previously described her as meticulous and unwilling to compromise on evidence.
The claim about phone tracking adds a technical dimension to the case. Investigators in past cases have used call data records and location information to build timelines. The court will likely assess whether there is any digital evidence to support the claim of a device being installed.
Calvin Jordan was named in the testimony as the person who allegedly took the phone. The defense and prosecution may both seek to establish the identity of that person and whether he can be located to give evidence.
This is not the first time new names and new claims have come up in the Kagezi trial. The case has involved multiple suspects and several years of proceedings. Delays are common in complex cases that involve security matters and multiple witnesses.
Human rights groups and legal associations have repeatedly called for the case to be concluded. They argue that a clear judicial outcome is important for the safety of prosecutors and for public confidence in the justice system.
For the prosecution, the testimony may be used to suggest motive. For the defense, the focus will likely be on the credibility of the witness, how he obtained the information, and whether it can be verified independently.
As proceedings continue, the court is expected to hear more witnesses and review exhibits. The judge will ultimately weigh all the evidence before making a determination.
Until a verdict is delivered, the statements made in court remain allegations. The principle of innocent until proven guilty applies to all persons mentioned.
The Kagezi case remains one of Uganda’s most watched trials because it involves the killing of a state attorney. Whatever the outcome, it will set important precedents on how such cases are investigated and prosecuted.
About the Author
