Septic tank murder: The Brenda Karamuzi case [Part 2: The investigation and prosecution]

A disturbing courtroom exhibit. A hoe displayed as the alleged murder weapon. A young woman found hidden in a septic tank. In this episode of New Vision CSI: Crime Stories, we revisit the Brenda Karamuzi case. (PART 2)

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:03

I've been looking at the picture of a hole that was allegedly used to kill Brenda Karamuze. It's on page 4 of the new vision published on Monday, May 23rd, 2011. The image is chilling. The hole looks worn out and blunt with two nails fastening the handle to the shaft and an exhibit number on it. It's being held in display by a gentleman in a grey suit, blue tie, and wearing gloves. The caption reads, A hole allegedly used by Nkurunjira to kill Karamuzi, being displayed at the High Court. The New Vision was reporting about new evidence pinning Tonko in septic tank murder. You are listening to the New Vision CSI Crime Stories podcast. This is the septic tank murder, the Brenda Karamouzi case. In this second part, the investigation and the prosecution's case. By the time Thomas Nkurunjira, popularly known as Tomku and his Shumba boy Fred Senpija, appeared before the High Court in Kampala, the prosecution had assembled what it believed was a compelling case. The state, led by principal state attorney John Kageze, alleged that the two men murdered Brenda Karamuzi between January 21st and January 30, 2010, at Kijuazon in Bukasa Muyenga, before concealing her body inside the septic tank at Tomku's rented residence. Over several months, prosecutors called 17 witnesses in an effort to prove that allegation. The evidence came from Brenda's family, friends, police detectives, forensic experts, mobile telephone specialists, and government analysts. Each witness added another piece to what prosecutors argued was the sequence of events that led to Brenda's death. One of the earliest witnesses was Brenda's mother, Joy Karamuzi, whose testimony painted the picture of a daughter looking forward to rebuilding her life. Joy told court she last saw Brenda alive on January 20th, 2010, when they traveled together from Kampala to their home in Ndeje, Namasuba. The next morning, Brenda left saying she was preparing for a job interview with a telecommunications company. Joy expected her daughter back. Instead, the phone remained switched off. She called repeatedly without success. Family members contacted relatives and friends. Nobody had seen Brenda. Then came the call no parent ever wants to receive. On January 30th, 2010, police informed Joy that a woman's body had been recovered from a septic tank at Tomku's residence. She traveled to Mulago Mochori where she identified Brenda's body. She told court that her daughter's head and neck bore serious injuries and there were cuts around her nose. The prosecution also relied on the testimony of Brenda's close friend Carol Nibarungi, who described the final hours she spent with Brenda. According to Carol, the two remained together at work's house in Kampala until about 5 p.m. on January 21st, 2010. When they parted, Brenda explained she intended to spend the night at Tomku's residence because he had promised to take her early the following morning for a job interview. Carol never saw her again. As investigators tried to reconstruct Brenda's final movements, they turned to one of the most important pieces of modern evidence, mobile phone records. During the trial, MTN Uganda security officer Maureen Asimwe testified about Brenda's phone activity. Her evidence was accompanied by call printouts and location reports that prosecutors successfully tendered as exhibits. Asimwe explained that the reports related to Brenda's MTN line 0776-169309 covering activity between January 1st and January 23rd, 2010. She also told court that at the request of police, MTN engineers physically visited the crime scene to analyze the network coverage. Using specialized equipment, they established which cellular base stations had handled Brenda's phone calls during the period under investigation. Their findings were presented before court. According to Asimwe, January 18th was particularly active. Brenda received 11 calls that day. Earlier activity placed her in Nagera. But as the evening progressed, the network recorded her phone connecting through different cell sites. The seventh call received at 8 18 p.m. placed the handset in the Bukasa Muyenga coverage area. The eighth call connected through Chirombe Muyenga. The ninth again showed Chirombe. The tenth call connected through Namiliango. The 11th could not be conclusively mapped because of the conflicting network signals. The following day, January 19th, MTN records showed Brenda receiving three more calls. The first connected through Muyenga Bukasa at 12:13 p.m. The second through Boonga Hill. The third through Biraro Estate in Kitintali. During cross-examination, the defense questioned whether these records conclusively proved Brenda had physically traveled between those locations. The defense also asked about activity on Brenda's SIM card after investigators established that it had been inserted into another handset. A simway testified that only one transaction was reflected. While the mobile phone evidence reconstructed movement, forensic scientists examined what investigators had recovered from Tonko's residence. Among the key witnesses was Geoffrey Onan, the principal analyst at the Government Analytical Laboratory. Onan testified that laboratory examinations revealed blood stains on several exhibits collected during the investigation. These included a hook, a white cushion, and clothing belonging to Brenda. The clothes had been recovered from three bags found inside Tomku's residence. The prosecution tendered the DNA report as an exhibit. According to Onen's findings, the blood found on those exhibits matched Brenda Karamuzi. The defense would later point out that Tomku's own DNA did not match the blood recovered from those exhibits, arguing that investigators had failed to carry out DNA analysis on Fred Sempija, whom they believed should also have been examined. Those arguments would become central to the defense case. But before then, prosecutors introduced evidence they considered even more damaging. Police detective Joy Mary Naku took the witness stand. Naku told court she had recorded a charge and caution statement from Fred Sempija on March 24, 2010 at Katwe Police Station. She explained that she first recorded the statement in Luganda before translating it into English. According to her testimony, Sempija signed both versions to confirm that they accurately reflected what he had said. Neither Tonku's lawyers, Nsubuga Mubiru and Patrick Johnny Barenzi nor Sempija's lawyer Janet Nakakande objected when the prosecution asked the court to admit the statements as exhibits. Those statements became one of the most closely watched pieces of evidence during the trial. In the statement read before court, Sempija claimed he found Brenda already dead. He described entering the sitting room and seeing her body wrapped in a red bed sheet. He said broken glass bottles were scattered across the room. Then came the allegation that would dominate newspaper headlines. According to the statement, Sem PJ said, and I quote, I found when he had wrapped the body of Brenda in a red bed sheet. Both of us opened the septic tank. Tom opened the sheet and threw the body inside the tank. Then we covered the septic tank. End of quote. Sempija further stated that after disposing of the body, he cleaned the sitting room, he washed bloodstained clothes and bed sheets. He also claimed Tomku asked him to never reveal what had happened. According to the statement, Tomku allegedly promised him 1 million shillings in addition to his salary of 200,000 shillings if he kept the matter secret. Sempija's statement also provided background about the household. He said he had worked as a chamber boy for Tomku and Tonku's neighbor as his kakosa since January 1st, 2007. He described Tonku as unmarried and said many women and friends regularly visited the residence. Among them, he said, he knew Brenda and another woman identified as Susan. He recognized others only by appearance. According to Sempija, on the Friday before Brenda disappeared, she arrived at about midday and asked whether Tonku was home. He said he answered that he was. As the prosecution closed its case, the state argued that the evidence from witness testimony, forensic analysis, mobile phone records, and Sempija's statements formed a complete chain pointing to Tonku and Sempija. The defense strongly disagreed. After reviewing the prosecution's evidence, Tonku's lawyers informed the court that they would not make a submission of no case to answer. Instead, they elected to proceed directly with the defense. Justice Albert Rugardia Atwoki then delivered an important ruling. Addressing both accused men, he said the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence requiring each of them to respond. With that ruling, the trial entered its next phase. For the first time, Tonku would take the witness stand, deny murdering Brenda Karamuzi, present an alibi, and accuse investigators of conducting what his lawyers described as a deeply flawed investigation. In part three, we cover the defense, the closing submissions, Justice Lugardia at Woki's judgment on 13th August 2011, the Court of Appeal decision and the latest verified status of Donku's appeal.