Wakilii

Uganda v Dhikusooka alias Hibwagi Sinani Farook alias Sooka and 4 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 5 of 2021)

High Court · [2023] UGHCICD 3 · 2023 Charges Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation hearing under Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute — prosecution seeks confirmation of charges against five accused persons
Decision
All charges confirmed — matter remitted to trial Judge or Panel for full hearing

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The court confirmed all charges against all five accused persons, finding the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused belonged to ADF (a listed terrorist organisation), rendered support by recruiting and transporting persons to ADF camps in the DRC and South Africa for military training, engaged in terrorist financing, and committed aggravated trafficking in persons including trafficking of children. The case was remitted for trial.

Outcome

All charges confirmed — matter remitted to trial Judge or Panel for full hearing

Facts

Between May 2018 and July 2019, the five accused persons recruited multiple individuals from eastern Uganda (Mayuge, Mbale, Iganga) by deception, falsely representing that recruits would receive work, education, or religious studies. A1 (Dhikusooka) was recruited into ADF while in Luzira Prison and subsequently recruited others, providing funds for their transport to Kasese. A2 (Muhindo) received recruits at the Uganda-DRC border in Bwera and transported them to ADF camps in the DRC. A3 (Mukwaya) was recruited by A1 and sent to South Africa for six months' military training. A5 (Agaba) worked with A1 in recruitment. Witnesses included Abdul Malik Kyoyo (age unspecified), Kaawuta Yasin, Bazale Sharif, and Mulumba Arafat (age 14). A1 received over UGX 4,300,000 from another ADF operative in London to fund recruitment activities. Some recruits escaped from DRC camps and reported to Ugandan authorities, leading to arrests of the accused persons.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons belonged or professed to belong to the Allied Democratic Forces, a terrorist organisation.
  2. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons rendered support to the Allied Democratic Forces by recruiting and transporting persons to ADF camps.
  3. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that A1 willingly provided funds for terrorist financing with the intention that such funds would be used for ADF activities.
  4. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons engaged in aggravated trafficking in persons by recruiting, transporting and transferring victims to join ADF.
  5. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons conspired to commit trafficking in persons.

Orders

  • Charges confirmed against all accused persons in accordance with the indictment.
  • Case remitted for trial to the trial Judge or Panel.

Rules and key headnotes

Anti-Terrorism — Pre-Trial Confirmation — Standard of Proof
At a pre-trial confirmation hearing under Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute, the prosecution must support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused person committed the crimes charged, and may rely on documentary or summary evidence without calling witnesses expected to testify at trial.
Anti-Terrorism — Belonging to Terrorist Organisation — Common Intention
To establish the offence of belonging or professing to belong to a terrorist organisation under section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must prove that the accused belonged or professed to belong to an organisation, that the organisation is a listed terrorist organisation, and that the accused persons shared a common intention to commit the crime, which common intention may be proved by drawing inferences from circumstances surrounding the fact in issue.
Anti-Terrorism — Rendering Support — Recruitment as Support
Under section 11(1)(b)(3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, rendering support to a terrorist organisation by recruiting new members and transporting them to training camps constitutes soliciting or inviting support other than money or property, and is punishable where the accused knew or had reason to believe the support would be used for or in connection with acts of terrorism.
Anti-Terrorism — Terrorist Financing — Intention and Knowledge
The offence of terrorist financing under section 9A(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 requires proof that the accused willingly collected or provided funds directly or indirectly, with the specific intention that such funds would be used, or with knowledge that such funds would be used, in full or in part, by a suspected terrorist or terrorist organisation. Knowledge exists where the accused was actually aware of the fact or a prudent individual could be expected to discover or become aware of such fact in the course of conducting a reasonably comprehensive investigation.
Trafficking in Persons — Aggravated Trafficking — Elements
To prove aggravated trafficking in persons under sections 3(1)(a) and 4 of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009, the prosecution must establish the act (recruiting, transporting, transferring, harbouring or receiving), the means (including deception, fraud, or abuse of position of vulnerability), and the purpose of exploitation. The offence is aggravated where the victim is a child, the offence is committed by a syndicate or on a large scale, or the offender organises or directs others to commit the offence.
Trafficking in Persons — Exploitation for Criminal Activity
Recruiting persons by deception and transporting them to join a terrorist organisation for military training constitutes exploitation within the meaning of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009, where the accused organised the victims to commit a crime of joining and belonging to a terrorist organisation operating as a syndicate.
Conspiracy — Elements — Overt Act Requirement
Criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act and then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. A person may be convicted of conspiracy even if the actual crime was never completed, provided at least one co-conspirator took some concrete step in furtherance of the plan.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (1)

  • Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo (ICC Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Uganda v Dhikusooka alias Hibwagi Sinani Farook alias Sooka and 4 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 5 of 2021) [2023] UGHCICD 3 (4 April 2023)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.