Police say David Kato was murdered over a “personal disagreement”

So says this Reuter’s report:

David Kato, one of the country’s most visible gay campaigners, was beaten to death with a hammer at his home on Thursday and died on the way to hospital.

Homosexuality is taboo in many African nations. It is illegal in 37 countries on the continent, including Uganda, and activists say few Africans are openly gay, fearing imprisonment, violence and loss of jobs.

Kato had been featured in an anti-gay newspaper in October that “outed” people it said were gay and called on the government to kill them. His photograph was published on the cover under the headline: “Hang Them.”

The activist said he had received death threats since the publication.

“The prime suspect, Nsubuga Enock, was arrested today at around 4pm when he went to visit his girlfriend,” police spokesman Vincent Ssetake told Reuters.

“He has confessed to the murder. It wasn’t a robbery and it wasn’t because Kato was an activist. It was a personal disagreement but I can’t say more than that.”

Currently, there is no objective way to know what that disagreement was about, if indeed that is accurate. Many of Kato’s Ugandan friends tell me privately that they doubt this narrative and are also seeking to find the truth.

UPDATES:

CNN (Nsubuga was a gardener) and AFP (Nsubuga was a prostitute) add detail and suggest that Nsugaba was hired for sexual reasons. As one of those providing comment said, Kato had been accused before of rape. Nothing came of those charges which are suspicious due to their source. At this point, I am still withholding my opinion about the plausibility of the narrative which has developed.

36 thoughts on “Police say David Kato was murdered over a “personal disagreement””

  1. Another point: Kato was a small and slender man – unlike Nsubuga, I believe.

  2. From tomorrow’s Monitor: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1102894/-/c58m79z/-/index.html

    N. is reported to have said this:

    “Kato wanted me to be his lover which I completely refused because I was not pleased with what he was doing to fellow men.”

    Two things:-

    1. it suggests that N. is not gay, and

    2. it suggests that they did not have sex.

    Bang goes the ‘lovers’ tiff’ theory?

    Might there also be a whiff of ‘hatred’ here?

    And what did N. want from Kato, I wonder?

  4. From the AFP article:-

    ‘ Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.”

    ‘ Last year Kato was named and pictured by an anti-gay tabloid called Rolling Stone in a story that carried the headline “Hang Them” in reference to gay rights campaigners.

    ‘ “Whoever is talking about hanging, we are going to have to take them on. It is absolutely unacceptable,” Kayihura said.

    ‘ Kayihura also admonished Anglican priest Thomas Musoke for anti-gay remarks made at Kato’s funeral last week.

    ‘ “You don’t make such statements at a funeral,” he said. “God accepts everybody … you must be sensitive.”

    ‘ Although engaging in homosexual sex is listed in Uganda’s penal code, Kayihura said investigating such cases in not a top priority. ‘

    This looks like sensible stuff to me.

  5. Warren

    You refer to ‘P. K.’ (mentioned by ‘andy’ on another thread) in your update above? If so, I take your point!

  6. A further point: in the past, ‘Maazi’, you have decried the use of the word ‘consensual’ in relation to same-sex relationships. I’m please that you know recognise the concept, in fact, if not in law.

    I am quite disappointed that you misunderstood me. If there is mutual agreement between two or more people to engage in any activity at all, then we can say that the activity is “consensual”. With regards to gayism, I have always argued that “consent” is no excuse for engaging in the abominable crime of buggery. For instance, in Uganda, assisting a person in committing suicide is illegal even if the consent was given by the suicidal person.

    ‘Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory ‘

    I am not aware that Ugandan Police ever ruled out anything. They simply said that preliminary investigation indicated that so-called “homophobia” was not a motive for the murder.

    and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.”

    And you are so excited about this? You fantasizing about the Inspector General of Police becoming the next gay rights activist? Naturally, he was directing his comments primarily at certain evangelicals whose methodology of fighting gayism is NOT universally accepted within Uganda. I have written on this blog on certain occasions that although I see Ssempa as a “brilliant man”, I do not support his methods. The Inspector-General also had the ghastly tabloid Rolling Stones in mind when he issued his warnings. The most important reality is that the Bahati Bill is still in the custody of the relevant parliamentary committee—- and the intention to push it through (with appropriate amendments) remains resolute.

  8. Nevertheless, ‘Maazi’, when people in positions of responsibility are ‘calm and balanced’, I respect and welcome that, notwithstanding any ‘doubts’ I might have.

  9. A further point: in the past, ‘Maazi’, you have decried the use of the word ‘consensual’ in relation to same-sex relationships. I’m please that you know recognise the concept, in fact, if not in law.

  10. Calm down, sweetheart – I’m just reporting what I see, and making brief comments.

  11. I think there’s more to come. The question is: will it be allowed to emerge into the public domain?

    We’ll see …

  13. From the APF report:-

    ‘Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.” ‘

  14. While I do remain somewhat sceptical about the ‘explanation’ offered so far (after all, we’ve had the Bahati Bill, the ‘pastoral porn shows’, the ‘Rolling Stone’, the threats to Kato and his fellow plaintiffs, the general homophobic ‘background noise’), the calm and balanced way in which the Inspector General has presented the situation so far is to be welcomed.

  15. I’m glad that the UG police are apparently not ‘leaping to hasty conclusions’.

  16. The reference to ‘consensual sex’ is interesting; under UG law, there is technically no such thing as ‘consensual’ homosexual activity.Maybe there’s some ‘new thinking’ around?

    Literally, speaking the act of sodomy between the 2 men was mutually agreed hence it was “consensual”. New Vision did not comment on the legality or illegality of the said “consensual” act. And knowing that newspaper very well, it will never comment beyond that.

    ….the calm and balanced way in which the Inspector General has presented the situation so far is to be welcomed.

    That is why he is the Inspector-General of Police. Don’t delude yourself that he is now pro-gay by massaging the egos of foreign journalists and foreign diplomats. A bad wind must be given enough space to blow over.

  17. The west will never embrace the truth in this case except that which sounds sweet to their ears.

  18. From tomorrow’s Monitor: http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/-/688334/1102894/-/c58m79z/-/index.html

    N. is reported to have said this:

    “Kato wanted me to be his lover which I completely refused because I was not pleased with what he was doing to fellow men.”

    Two things:-

    1. it suggests that N. is not gay, and

    2. it suggests that they did not have sex.

    Bang goes the ‘lovers’ tiff’ theory?

    Might there also be a whiff of ‘hatred’ here?

    And what did N. want from Kato, I wonder?

  21. From the AFP article:-

    ‘ Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.”

    ‘ Last year Kato was named and pictured by an anti-gay tabloid called Rolling Stone in a story that carried the headline “Hang Them” in reference to gay rights campaigners.

    ‘ “Whoever is talking about hanging, we are going to have to take them on. It is absolutely unacceptable,” Kayihura said.

    ‘ Kayihura also admonished Anglican priest Thomas Musoke for anti-gay remarks made at Kato’s funeral last week.

    ‘ “You don’t make such statements at a funeral,” he said. “God accepts everybody … you must be sensitive.”

    ‘ Although engaging in homosexual sex is listed in Uganda’s penal code, Kayihura said investigating such cases in not a top priority. ‘

    This looks like sensible stuff to me.

  22. Goodnight, ‘Maazi’.

    I’m sure we’ll engage in further ‘interesting dialogue’ again soon!

  23. Calm down, sweetheart – I’m just reporting what I see, and making brief comments.

  24. A further point: in the past, ‘Maazi’, you have decried the use of the word ‘consensual’ in relation to same-sex relationships. I’m please that you know recognise the concept, in fact, if not in law.

    I am quite disappointed that you misunderstood me. If there is mutual agreement between two or more people to engage in any activity at all, then we can say that the activity is “consensual”. With regards to gayism, I have always argued that “consent” is no excuse for engaging in the abominable crime of buggery. For instance, in Uganda, assisting a person in committing suicide is illegal even if the consent was given by the suicidal person.

    ‘Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory ‘

    I am not aware that Ugandan Police ever ruled out anything. They simply said that preliminary investigation indicated that so-called “homophobia” was not a motive for the murder.

    and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.”

    And you are so excited about this? You fantasizing about the Inspector General of Police becoming the next gay rights activist? Naturally, he was directing his comments primarily at certain evangelicals whose methodology of fighting gayism is NOT universally accepted within Uganda. I have written on this blog on certain occasions that although I see Ssempa as a “brilliant man”, I do not support his methods. The Inspector-General also had the ghastly tabloid Rolling Stones in mind when he issued his warnings. The most important reality is that the Bahati Bill is still in the custody of the relevant parliamentary committee—- and the intention to push it through (with appropriate amendments) remains resolute.

  25. Warren

    You refer to ‘P. K.’ (mentioned by ‘andy’ on another thread) in your update above? If so, I take your point!

  26. I’m glad that the UG police are apparently not ‘leaping to hasty conclusions’.

  27. From the APF report:-

    ‘Kayihura added that police were “not dismissing” the hate crime theory and cautioned the public and Uganda’s media against “intolerance.” ‘

  28. A further point: in the past, ‘Maazi’, you have decried the use of the word ‘consensual’ in relation to same-sex relationships. I’m please that you know recognise the concept, in fact, if not in law.

  29. Nevertheless, ‘Maazi’, when people in positions of responsibility are ‘calm and balanced’, I respect and welcome that, notwithstanding any ‘doubts’ I might have.

  30. The reference to ‘consensual sex’ is interesting; under UG law, there is technically no such thing as ‘consensual’ homosexual activity.Maybe there’s some ‘new thinking’ around?

    Literally, speaking the act of sodomy between the 2 men was mutually agreed hence it was “consensual”. New Vision did not comment on the legality or illegality of the said “consensual” act. And knowing that newspaper very well, it will never comment beyond that.

    ….the calm and balanced way in which the Inspector General has presented the situation so far is to be welcomed.

    That is why he is the Inspector-General of Police. Don’t delude yourself that he is now pro-gay by massaging the egos of foreign journalists and foreign diplomats. A bad wind must be given enough space to blow over.

  31. While I do remain somewhat sceptical about the ‘explanation’ offered so far (after all, we’ve had the Bahati Bill, the ‘pastoral porn shows’, the ‘Rolling Stone’, the threats to Kato and his fellow plaintiffs, the general homophobic ‘background noise’), the calm and balanced way in which the Inspector General has presented the situation so far is to be welcomed.

  34. I think there’s more to come. The question is: will it be allowed to emerge into the public domain?

    We’ll see …

  35. Goodnight, ‘Maazi’.

    I’m sure we’ll engage in further ‘interesting dialogue’ again soon!

  36. The west will never embrace the truth in this case except that which sounds sweet to their ears.

Comments are closed.