High Court finds the accused not guilty of aggravated defilement because of Insanity.

Waboga David
Aug 5
3 min read

Introduction

In criminal liability, one of the defences is insanity, a legal concept that recognizes that not all persons are capable of forming the necessary mental intent (mens rea) to be held criminally responsible for their actions.

The defence of insanity is rooted in the principle that punishment is only justified where there is culpability — and that individuals who, by reason of mental illness or defect, are unable to understand the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of their actions cannot justly be held to the same standard of legal accountability as those who act with full mental capacity.

Under Ugandan criminal law, the defence of insanity is governed by section 49 of the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 25, which provides that where an accused person is found to have committed the act constituting the offence, but was insane at the time such that they were not responsible for their actions, the court shall make a special finding of "not guilty by reason of insanity."

This provision mirrors the common law position established in the historic M’Naghten Rules (1843), which require the accused to have been suffering from a mental disease or defect that either prevented them from knowing the nature and quality of their act or from understanding that it was wrong.

The presumption of sanity is a general principle in criminal law — every person is presumed sane until the contrary is proved. However, where the defence of insanity is raised, either by the defence or the prosecution, it shifts the burden onto the defence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the accused was suffering from a mental illness at the material time.

Courts rely heavily on expert psychiatric evidence, behavioural observations, and sometimes historical mental health records to assess whether the accused meets the legal threshold for insanity.

Importantly, a successful insanity defence does not result in acquittal and release. Rather, the accused is ordered to be detained as a criminal lunatic in a mental facility, pending further directions from the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, as provided for under section 49(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

This aims to strike a balance between protecting the public and providing treatment and care for individuals who are mentally unwell.

Thus, the insanity defence serves not merely as a shield for the accused, but as a mechanism for ensuring that justice is administered humanely, proportionately, and in accordance with the mental condition of the offender.

Brief Facts of the Case

On 25th July 2021, the accused, Kantinti Joel, allegedly pulled a 9-year-old girl, Nansamba Lydia, into his house in Kisimu Village, Nansana Division, and sexually assaulted her. Neighbours responded to her cries, forced entry, and reportedly found the accused on top of the child.

The victim fled and the matter was reported to police. Medical examination confirmed signs of sexual assault. The accused was arrested after refusing to open the door, prompting police to use tear gas.

The accused denied the offence, claimed to be a virgin, and raised a plea of insanity, supported by medical records from Butabika and Murchison Bay Hospitals, indicating he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was on treatment since 2015.

Key Findings

The Court found that:

The victim was under 14 years (aged 9).

A sexual act occurred, evidenced by medical findings of vulval bruising.

The accused was identified at the scene by the victim and a neighbour.

Despite proving the offence, the Court accepted the defence of insanity based on:

Medical reports from Butabika and Murchison Bay Hospitals confirming schizophrenia and ongoing mental illness treatment.

Visual evidence of the accused’s erratic behaviour and mental instability at the time of arrest.

Defence testimony from the accused’s mother confirming a long history of mental health challenges.

The Court invoked section 49, which allows for a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity where evidence shows the accused lacked criminal responsibility at the time of the offence.

Court Order

A special finding of not guilty by reason of insanity was entered.
The accused was ordered to be held in custody as a criminal lunatic at Murchison Bay Hospital.
The matter was referred to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs for further directives in accordance with section 49(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act.

Key Takeaways

✅ A successful insanity defence requires credible psychiatric evidence and a clear connection to the accused’s mental state at the time of the offence.

✅ Even where a serious offence is proven, criminal responsibility may be excluded due to mental incapacity.

✅ Under Ugandan law, such cases result in medical custody, not outright acquittal or release.

✅ Courts have discretion to weigh medical reports, visual conduct, and witness credibility in determining mental state.

✅ The role of the Minister is important, post-judgment, where insanity is established, underscoring the intersection between mental health and justice administration.

Read the full case below