Joan Kagezi was a senior prosecutor in Uganda whose work focused on terrorism cases and other high profile criminal matters. She was killed in March 2015 in Kiwatule, Kampala, while driving home with her children. Her death drew national attention because she was handling sensitive cases at the time, including prosecutions linked to the 2010 Kampala bombings. For years the case remained in court with multiple suspects appearing before the High Court.
During a recent session of the trial, a witness named Nasur Abdallah Mugonole took the stand and made statements that shifted the direction of the testimony. Mugonole told the court that he had become aware of the plan to kill Kagezi because he was allegedly recruited to collect intelligence. According to his account, his role was to gather information on people involved in planning the assassination and to pass reports to someone he referred to only as “Green.”
Mugonole alleged in court that the person giving instructions was connected to former Inspector General of Police Kale Kayihura. He claimed that Kayihura had approached Kagezi directly with an offer of Shs 1 billion. The alleged purpose of the offer, Mugonole said, was to obtain documents that he claimed implicated Kayihura in violent activities and in dealings involving illegal firearms.
The court heard that Kagezi rejected the offer. Mugonole testified that she told the people who approached her that she would not take the money and that she intended to hand the documents over to President Yoweri Museveni instead. That refusal, according to the testimony, was presented as a turning point in the events that followed.
Another detail Mugonole raised concerned Kagezi’s mobile phone. He alleged that before her murder, her phone was taken by a man he identified as Calvin Jordan. According to the testimony, Jordan gained access to the family by presenting himself as someone interested in dating Kagezi’s daughter. The approach, Mugonole said, was used to get close enough to take the phone without raising immediate suspicion.
Mugonole further alleged that the phone was not kept permanently. He told the court that it was returned to the family about three days later. The reason given in his testimony was that during the time it was away, a tracking device was installed on it. The alleged purpose of the device was to monitor Kagezi’s movements in the days leading up to her death.
The High Court is still hearing evidence in the case, and multiple people have been charged in connection with Kagezi’s murder over the years. Previous proceedings have included testimony about surveillance, motorcycle riders, and the planning of the attack. The new claims about a billion shilling offer and phone tracking add another layer to a case that has already spanned many years.
Kale Kayihura served as Inspector General of Police from 2005 until 2018. During his tenure he was a central figure in Uganda’s security leadership. He has previously denied various allegations made against him in different forums. As of now, the statements made by Mugonole are allegations presented during testimony and have not been proven in court.
The reference to “Green” in Mugonole’s testimony drew questions from the court. He did not provide a full name or further identifying details during the portion that was reported. The identity of “Green” and the exact role of that person remain subjects that the prosecution and defense are expected to address as the trial continues.
Legal observers note that testimony in long running criminal cases often brings new names and new claims. Courts in Uganda typically require corroboration and cross examination before such allegations can be used to support a conviction. The defense is expected to challenge the credibility of the witness and the details of how the information was obtained.
Joan Kagezi was known for her work on terrorism files and for pushing for convictions in cases that many prosecutors avoided. Colleagues described her as firm and focused on building evidence. Her killing happened at a time when several state prosecutors were facing threats, which led to increased security measures for judicial officers afterward.
The allegation about the Shs 1 billion offer touches on the issue of interference with prosecutorial work. If proven, such an offer would raise serious questions about attempts to obstruct justice. For now, it remains an allegation made by one witness and recorded as part of the court record.
The detail about the phone is also significant because digital tracking has featured in other criminal investigations in Uganda. Phones are often used to establish timelines, locations, and communications. The claim that a device was installed to monitor movements would, if substantiated, provide investigators with a method that was allegedly used to plan the attack.
Calvin Jordan was named by Mugonole as the person who allegedly took the phone. The court will likely need to determine who that individual is, whether he can be located, and what evidence exists to support that claim. Without corroborating evidence, a single name in testimony is not enough to establish involvement.
The case has already seen several suspects arraigned, some of whom have been on remand for years. Delays in high profile cases are common due to the volume of evidence, witness availability, and legal procedures. The introduction of new allegations can extend timelines as both sides request time to investigate.
Public interest in the Kagezi case remains high because it involves the killing of a state attorney in the line of duty. Civil society groups and legal bodies have called for the case to be concluded in a way that upholds the rule of law. They argue that a clear outcome is important for the independence of prosecutors.
For the prosecution, Mugonole’s testimony may be used to try to establish motive and a chain of command. Prosecutors will likely look for documents, financial records, phone data, and other witnesses that can support or contradict the claims made in court. The defense will likely seek to test the witness’s memory, motives, and access to information.
Kayihura has not, to public knowledge, responded in court to these specific allegations during this hearing. Any response would typically come through his legal team or if he is called to testify. Until then, the claims remain part of the evidence being presented and tested.
The mention of illegal firearms dealings in the testimony also connects to broader discussions about security and accountability in Uganda. Allegations of that nature usually trigger requests for investigation by oversight bodies. How those threads are pursued may depend on what additional evidence is presented.
As the trial proceeds, the High Court will have to weigh all testimony against other evidence on record. Judges in such cases look for consistency, corroboration, and credibility. The outcome will depend on whether the court finds that the prosecution has met the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
For now, the statement made by Nasur Abdallah Mugonole stands as one of the most direct allegations linking a former IGP to the planning of Kagezi’s murder. The court process will determine what weight, if any, it carries in the final judgment.
