The accused persons were charged the offence of false
accounting by a public office, abuse of office, causing
financial loss, embezzlement and corruption.
Court considered whether the offence was proved beyond
Court held on the charge of false accounting that the first and
second accused knowingly furnished false accounting of UGX
498,886,600/= which had been under their control.
Court further considered whether the accused could raise the
defense of duress.
Court held that the subjective test to the defense of duress is
whether the accused was compelled to act as he did as a result
of what he reasonably believed were circumstances in which
his or her life was in Immediate danger or whether it was a
risk of serious physical injury. In the instant case, the first and
the second accused had ample time to report the threats. Their
lives were not under immediate danger and therefore the
defense of duress is not available to them.
Court held that it was unable to make a finding on count 4
because the prosecution offended the rules of drafting the
rules of drafting by creating a multiplicity of counts using the
Court accordingly found the first and second accused persons
were guilty as charged.