Wakilii

Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Ors (Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010)

High Court · [2016] UGHCICD 1 · 2016 Conviction Entered AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial arising from committal for trial by Nakawa Chief Magistrate's Court
Decision
Seven accused convicted of terrorism; six accused acquitted; charge of belonging to terrorist organisation struck out

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 convicted seven accused of terrorism under the Anti Terrorism Act 2002 for their roles in the July 2010 Kampala bomb blasts at Kyadondo Rugby Club and Ethiopian Village Restaurant. The charge of belonging to a terrorist organisation was struck out as Al-Shabaab was not listed in the Second Schedule to the Act at the material time. Six accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution proved the ingredients of terrorism including intent, purpose to intimidate, political aim, and indiscriminate targeting of public places.

Outcome

Seven accused convicted of terrorism; six accused acquitted; charge of belonging to terrorist organisation struck out

Facts

On 11 July 2010, bomb explosions occurred at Kyadondo Rugby Club and Ethiopian Village Restaurant in Kampala during the FIFA World Cup final, killing 76 people and injuring many others. An unexploded device was found at Makindye House. Prosecution evidence established that the attacks were planned by Al-Shabaab in Somalia as retaliation for Uganda's deployment of troops to AMISOM. Explosives were transported from Somalia through Kenya to Uganda. Cell members rented a safe house in Namasuba where final preparations were made. Two suicide bombers detonated devices at the two venues while a third device failed to explode. Extensive telephone records, DNA evidence, witness testimony, and confessions linked the accused to the planning and execution.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that each accused person participated in the commission of the offence of terrorism.
  2. Whether Al-Shabaab qualified as a terrorist organisation within the meaning of the Anti Terrorism Act 2002 at the material time.
  3. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of the offence of terrorism under section 7(2)(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act.
  4. Whether retracted confessions and accomplice evidence could be relied upon to establish guilt.
  5. Whether the circumstantial evidence adduced was sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Orders

  • Charge of belonging to a terrorist organisation struck out with regard to A1 to A12.
  • Hussein Hassan Agade (A1) convicted of terrorism.
  • Idris Magondu (A2) convicted of terrorism.
  • Issa Ahmed Luyima (A3) convicted of terrorism.
  • Hassan Haruna Luyima (A4) convicted of terrorism.
  • Habib Suleiman Njoroge (A7) convicted of terrorism.
  • Mohamed Ali Mohamed (A11) convicted of terrorism.
  • Selemani Hijar Nyamandondo (A10) convicted of terrorism.
  • Yahya Suleiman Mbuthia (A6) acquitted of terrorism.
  • Omar Awadh Omar (A8) acquitted of terrorism.
  • Mohamed Hamid Suleiman (A9) acquitted of terrorism.
  • Abubakari Batemetyo (A5) acquitted of terrorism.
  • Dr. Ismail Kalule (A12) acquitted of terrorism.
  • Muzafar Luyima (A13) acquitted of being an accessory after the fact.

Rules and key headnotes

Anti Terrorism Act — Meaning of 'Terrorist Organisation' — Restrictive Definition
Under section 10 of the Anti Terrorism Act 2002, only organisations specified in the Second Schedule or those passing under a name mentioned in that Schedule qualify as terrorist organisations. The phrases 'affiliate', 'allegiance', 'alliance' and 'ally' do not meet the statutory requirement of 'passing under a name' mentioned in the Schedule. Al-Shabaab, though an affiliate and ally of Al-Qaeda, was not a terrorist organisation within the Act's meaning at the material time as it was not listed in the Second Schedule.
Burden and Standard of Proof — Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
The burden of proof in criminal cases lies perpetually on the prosecution and does not shift to the accused. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt does not require proof with utmost certainty but requires a high degree of probability such that only a remote possibility of innocence remains. If the evidence is so strong against an accused as to leave only a remote possibility in favour which can be dismissed as not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Accomplice Evidence — Warning and Corroboration
An accomplice is a competent witness and a conviction may proceed on uncorroborated accomplice evidence provided the court warns itself of the danger of so acting. Where the court, after warning itself, is satisfied of the credibility of the accomplice evidence, it may convict even without corroboration. However, it is a salutary rule of practice to seek corroboration and great caution should be exercised before relying on uncorroborated accomplice evidence.
Retracted Confession — Admissibility and Weight
A retracted confession may be admitted in evidence where the court, after conducting a trial within a trial, is satisfied it was made voluntarily. Such confession may be taken into consideration against a co-accused under section 27 of the Evidence Act where it amounts to a full admission of guilt by the confessor. However, a retracted confession cannot be the sole basis for conviction but may supplement other substantial evidence. As a salutary rule of practice, corroboration should be sought though it is not a legal requirement.
Circumstantial Evidence — Standard for Conviction
For circumstantial evidence to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt, it must irresistibly point to the guilt of the accused. The inference of guilt is only justified when the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. There must be no co-existing circumstance that would weaken or destroy the inference of guilt. Where the prosecution case rests exclusively on circumstantial evidence, this standard must be strictly applied.
Terrorism — Ingredients of the Offence under Section 7(2)(a)
The offence of terrorism under section 7(2)(a) of the Anti Terrorism Act 2002 comprises: intentional and unlawful manufacture, delivery, discharge or detonation of explosive or lethal device in a place of public use; done with intent to cause death, serious bodily injury or extensive destruction; for political, religious, social or economic aim; carried out indiscriminately without due regard to safety of others; for the purpose of influencing government or intimidating the public; and the participation of the accused in such act.
Joint Offenders — Doctrine of Common Intention
Under section 20 of the Penal Code Act, where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction and an offence is committed as a probable consequence of that purpose, each is deemed to have committed the offence. Common intention need not be pre-arranged and may develop in the course of events. It may be inferred from presence, actions and omissions of the accused. However, the presumption of common intention must not be too readily applied — the court must have judicial certitude that the accused preconceived or acted in concert to bring about the result.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (29)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Okethi Okale & Ors v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Andrea Obonyo & Ors v R [1962] EA 542
  • Abdu Ngobi v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 1991)
  • Byamungu s/o Rusiliba v Rex (1951) 18 EACA 233
  • Ismael Kisegerwa & Anor v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Abdi Alli v R (1956) 23 EACA 573
  • Noor Mohamed Jiwa v Rex (1951) 18 EACA 155
  • Rasikial Jamnadas Davda v Republic [1965] EA 201
  • R v Baskerville [1916] 2 KB 658
  • Nassolo v Uganda [2003] 1 EA 177
  • Uganda v Khimchand Kalidas Shah & 2 Ors [1966] EA 30
  • Susan Kigula & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2004)
  • Ezera Kyabanamaizi & Ors v R [1962] EA 309
  • Girisomu Bakaye & Ors v Uganda [1965] EA 621
  • Asoka v Republic [1973] EA 222
  • Karsan Velji v R [1957] EA 702
  • Hassan Salum v Republic [1964] EA 126
  • Barland Singh v Reginam (1954) 21 EACA 209
  • Wainaina & Ors v Republic [1973] EA 182
  • Oketcho Richard v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 26 of 1995)
  • Khatijabai Jiwa Hasham v Zenab d/o Chandu Nansi [1957] EA 38
  • Omari s/o Hassani v Reginam (1956) 23 EACA 580
  • Gas Ibrahim v Rex (1946) EACA 104
  • Usin & Anor v Republic [1973] EA 467
  • Kantar Singh Bharaj & Anor v Reginam (1953) 20 EACA 134
  • Tuwamoi v Uganda [1967] EA 84
  • Kazibwe Kassim v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2003)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade & 12 Ors (Criminal Session Case No. 0001 of 2010) [2016] UGHCICD 1 (26 May 2016)
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.