The Director of Public Prosecutions, Lino Anguzu, has indicated that the State will not prosecute Moses Matovu’s female companion, sex siren Rose Tumusiime who is instead expected to become a key prosecution witness in the case against Vincent Arnold Nsamba, alias Sitenda.
The DPP) has decided that the State will not prosecute Rose, clearing the way for her to become a key prosecution witness against Vincent Arnold Nsamba, alias Sitenda.
The decision means that Rose, who had been linked to the circumstances surrounding the case, will not face criminal charges over the allegations currently before investigators and prosecutors.
Instead, according to the DPP’s position, Rose is expected to provide evidence that could become important in the prosecution of Nsamba.
The development could significantly alter the direction of the case, particularly as prosecutors seek to establish what happened before, during and after the events that allegedly involved Nsamba.
The decision not to charge Rose is understood to have been reached after prosecutors examined the available evidence and assessed her potential role in the case.
Rather than treating her as an accused person, the State has opted to rely on her as a witness.
This is an important distinction in criminal proceedings.
A person who is initially linked to an investigation may eventually be treated as a witness where prosecutors conclude that the available evidence does not support prosecution against that individual, or where the person’s evidence is considered necessary to establish the case against another suspect.
In Rose’s case, the DPP’s decision places her on the prosecution side of the case and potentially gives investigators access to firsthand evidence about Nsamba and the circumstances surrounding the allegations.
Rose To Testify
Rose is expected to become one of the prosecution’s key witnesses against Nsamba, also known as Sitenda. Her evidence could help prosecutors piece together the sequence of events and establish the circumstances surrounding the alleged offence.
The prosecution’s case will ultimately depend on the evidence presented in court and whether it meets the required legal threshold.
However, witnesses with direct knowledge of events can become particularly important in cases where prosecutors must establish the actions, movements and intentions of an accused person.
Rose’s anticipated testimony could therefore become central to the State’s effort to build its case against Nsamba.
The decision also means that Rose’s account will be subjected to the normal safeguards of the criminal justice system.
If she appears as a prosecution witness, her evidence will be tested through cross-examination by the defence.
The defence will have an opportunity to challenge her account, question her credibility and point out any inconsistencies or gaps in her testimony.
Ultimately, it will be for the court—not the prosecution—to determine the weight to attach to her evidence.
Why The State Is Not Charging Her
The DPP’s decision highlights the prosecutorial discretion available to the State when reviewing criminal investigations.
The role of the DPP is not simply to prosecute every person whose name appears in an investigation.
Prosecutors are required to assess whether the available evidence supports a realistic prospect of conviction and whether prosecution is justified in the circumstances of each case.
Where evidence points towards a person being more useful as a witness than as an accused person, the prosecution may decide not to charge that individual. That appears to be the position in Rose’s case.
The State’s decision also suggests that prosecutors believe her evidence could help establish the case against Nsamba.
However, not charging Rose should not automatically be interpreted as a judicial finding that she bears no responsibility for any aspect of the events under investigation.
It is a prosecutorial decision based on the evidence available to the State. Nor does it amount to a finding of guilt against Nsamba.
The allegations against Nsamba remain allegations until proved beyond reasonable doubt in court.
Spotlight Turns To Nsamba
With her no longer facing prosecution, attention is expected to shift towards Nsamba and the evidence the State intends to present against him.
The prosecution will have to demonstrate, through admissible evidence, that Nsamba committed the offences with which he is charged or that he is otherwise criminally responsible for the alleged conduct.
Her testimony could form part of that evidence, alongside any forensic, documentary, digital or other evidence gathered during investigations.
The strength of the case will ultimately depend on how the different pieces of evidence fit together.
If Rose has direct knowledge of key events, prosecutors could rely on her testimony to explain matters that may not be adequately established through documentary or circumstantial evidence alone. Her evidence could also help investigators clarify disputed aspects of the case.
But because she is expected to testify against Nsamba, the defence is likely to closely examine her relationship with Matovu, her interactions with the accused and the circumstances under which she came into possession of information relevant to the case. Those issues could become important during trial.
Prosecution Prepares Case
The DPP’s decision is also likely to be followed by further preparation of the prosecution file as the State gets ready for the next stage of the proceedings.
Prosecutors typically rely on witness statements, exhibits and other evidence gathered by investigators before deciding how to proceed with a criminal case.
Key witnesses are expected to provide detailed accounts that enable prosecutors to establish the chronology of events and connect the accused to the alleged offence.
Tumusiime’s anticipated role as a prosecution witness could therefore make her an important part of the State’s case.
The State will, however, have to ensure that her evidence is properly recorded, disclosed to the defence where required and presented according to the rules of criminal procedure.
The defence, meanwhile, is expected to scrutinise the decision not to prosecute her and the circumstances under which she became a prosecution witness. Such scrutiny is a normal feature of an adversarial criminal trial.
No Charge For Now
The decision by the DPP not to prosecute Rose effectively removes her from the list of people facing criminal charges in connection with the matter, at least on the basis of the current prosecutorial decision.
Instead, she is expected to assist the State in its case against Nsamba. The development could prove significant as the prosecution seeks to establish its version of events and persuade court that the evidence against the accused meets the required legal standard.
For Nsamba, the focus now turns to how the State will use Rose Tumusiime’s evidence and whether the prosecution can corroborate her account with other evidence.
For Tumusiime, the decision provides a different legal status from that initially associated with her involvement in the investigation.
She moves from the shadow of possible prosecution to the potentially pivotal position of prosecution witness.
The case will now be closely watched as the State prepares to present its evidence against Vincent Arnold Nsamba, alias Sitenda.
For now, the position of the DPP is clear: Rose will not be prosecuted by the State and is instead expected to play a key role in helping prosecutors build their case against Nsamba.
Author Profile
- Mr. Stephen Kasozi Muwambi is a seasoned crime investigative writer, majoring in judicial-based stories. His two decades’ experience as a senior investigative journalist has made him one of the best to reckon on in Uganda. He can also be reached via [email protected]
Latest entries
FeaturedOctober 30, 2026INSIDE THE STATE HOUSE MEETING: WHY MUSEVENI WANTS ANSWERS FROM RUSSIAN DIGITAL PLATES FIRM: President Questions The Controversial Contract’s Escalating Cost, Security Shortcomings And Revenue-Sharing Arrangement As Mwine Mpaka Leads Legislators In Demanding Accountability
FeaturedOctober 29, 2026WHY KICKBOXING CHAMPION APOLOT MARRIED GEN ELWELU: The 24-year Age Gap Between Patricia Apolot And Retired Lt Gen Peter Elwelu Has Drawn Renewed Attention As Allegations Surrounding Their Marriage Emerge Amid A Military Standoff
FeaturedOctober 21, 2026NAMEERE RETAINS MASAKA CITY SEAT: High Court Dismisses Nalubowa’s Election Petition, Ruling That Recount Irregularities Did Not Substantially Alter The Final Result
FeaturedOctober 20, 2026VETERAN JOURNALIST KASYATE JOINS OPM: Simon Kasyate Moves Back Into Government Communications After Years In Journalism, Corporate Affairs And Public Relations, Including A Senior Role At KCCA
