A woman sentenced to five years imprisonment
By Bida Elly David
High court upon their final judgment yesterday sentenced a South Sudanese woman to five years imprisonment after finding her guilty of drug dealing and freed four suspected foreigners from Kenya and Nigeria.
The final judgment was passed after series of investigations were held in the past four months and evidence was clearly found.
Zelida Andrew, a thirty one-year-old lady and a mother to a three-year-old child, a law undergraduate student in Cavendish University Kampala and a final year student.
Four months ago, five of them were suspected and arrested for allegedly involving themselves in drug deals in Juba. Four of them were foreigners and one female South Sudanese. Among the foreigners, two were identified as Kenyans and two were Nigerians.
During the narrative of how the offence came about, the woman who was finally found guilty was a trader who claimed she was delegated by her friend’s husband to import sandals for sell from Liberia and Uganda.
After series of investigations and general luggage search conducted at the airport, drugs were found hidden under the sandals and others covered in electric power controller to avoid identification by the security personnel at the airport.
Speaking to the media, Alexander SadorSubek, the ruling judge reiterated that the woman was sentenced to five years imprisonment because she was found guilty of importing drugs such as cocaine, opium, heroine with clear evidence through her agent whom she claimed had absconded during the cross-examination held in the past rulings.
“The woman named Zelidah Andrew was found guilty for having violated section 383 of the laws which forbids exportation of illegal drugs to the Country and set the three foreigners due to lack of evidence found,” he added.
However, James Attaib Jazz, the defense lawyer of the third defendant said, the decision of the court had excluded the proper interpretation of the main three of the case and failure of presentation of the drugs that the convict was trading.
He added that the court focused only on the negative part of the third defendant who was the convict just because she was a lady.
“The court made a wrong interpretation of the case since the three defendants were absent and the convict who was the lady was not rendered the right of appeal because we believe that the convicted lady was not guilty of the allegation,” James added.
Furthermore, he added that the defense lawyers of the convict were still pessimistic since they would be going to the court of appeal after 15(fifteen).