Wakilii

Uganda v Jamal Kiyemba A.K.A. Abdullah A.K.A. Tonny Kiyemba (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0001-2023)

High Court · [2026] UGHCICD 8 · 2026 Conviction Partly Allowed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial before the High Court International Crimes Division on terrorism-related charges
Decision
The accused was convicted on one count and acquitted on another; one count was dismissed

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 High Court convicted the accused of soliciting support for the Allied Democratic Forces under Section 11(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, finding that a credible independent witness heard the accused publicly urge support for the ADF and that the accused's mental illness did not prevent him from understanding his actions. The court dismissed Count 1 for being incorrectly founded on Section 8 ATA, which applies to support for individuals rather than organisations. The court acquitted the accused on Count 2, holding that the prosecution failed to prove membership or profession of membership in the ADF, as witness statements made while the accused was in military custody were inadmissible under Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act, and the call data evidence did not establish the necessary link to proven ADF operatives.

Outcome

The accused was convicted on one count and acquitted on another; one count was dismissed

Facts

The accused was indicted on three counts under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002: rendering support to the ADF by recruiting persons; belonging to or professing to belong to the ADF; and soliciting support for the ADF. On 29 January 2022, the accused was arrested at the Old Taxi Park in Kampala after a civilian witness (PW2) reported hearing him loudly declare support for the ADF, urge residents to support the group, and warn of continued bloodshed if they did not, referencing recent bombings. The accused, who had been previously detained at Guantanamo Bay and on several occasions in Uganda on terrorism-related allegations, was diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder in 2016. At the time of arrest, he had ceased medication and was travelling to Bugiri. The prosecution relied on the civilian witness's testimony, the testimony of UPDF soldiers who effected the arrest, and call data records from a phone allegedly recovered from the accused, which purportedly showed communication with suspected ADF operatives. The accused denied the charges, denied owning the phone, and raised the defence of insanity.

Issues

  1. Whether the indictment was duplicitous, ambiguous, or prejudicial and should be struck out.
  2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused rendered support to a terrorist organisation contrary to Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  3. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused belonged to, or professed to belong to, the Allied Democratic Forces contrary to Section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  4. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused solicited or invited support for the Allied Democratic Forces contrary to Section 11(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  5. Whether the accused's alleged utterances while in custody were admissible as confessions or admissions under Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act.
  6. Whether the chain of custody for the mobile phone and SIM card allegedly recovered from the accused was established sufficiently to allow reliance on call data records.
  7. Whether the accused's defence of insanity under Section 11 of the Penal Code Act was made out on the balance of probabilities.

Orders

  • Count 1 is dismissed in favour of the accused.
  • The accused is found not guilty on Count 2.
  • The accused is found guilty on Count 3 (soliciting or inviting support for a terrorist organisation) and is convicted accordingly.

Rules and key headnotes

Anti-Terrorism Act — Support for Terrorist Organisations — Section 8 ATA applies to support for persons, not organisations
Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 criminalises support rendered to any person, knowing or having reason to believe that the support will be used for acts of terrorism. It does not apply to support rendered to terrorist organisations. Where the Act intends to criminalise support for terrorist organisations, it does so expressly under separate provisions such as Sections 7(2)(u), 9, and 11.
Anti-Terrorism Act — Belonging to or Professing to Belong to a Terrorist Organisation — Meaning of 'Belong'
To prove membership in a terrorist organisation under Section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must show that the accused voluntarily and knowingly associated with others in the group to advance its aims. Membership requires clear evidence of formal association or affiliation that goes beyond mere support, verbal endorsement, or ideological sympathy. Expressions of support, without more, do not suffice to prove membership.
Anti-Terrorism Act — Membership of Terrorist Organisation — Circumstantial Evidence
Where membership of a clandestine or outlawed organisation is in issue, circumstantial evidence may provide useful guidance. Such evidence may include training in the use of weapons, possession of weapons or articles associated with the group, travelling to known areas of the group's operations, association with members of the group, or taking part in the group's activities. Each element must be applied to the circumstances of the case.
Confessions and Admissions — Persons in Authority — Military Officers
Military officers who effect arrests and detain suspects are persons in authority for the purposes of the law on confessions. Statements made by an accused person while in the custody of military officers are inadmissible as evidence of confession or admission unless made in the immediate presence of a magistrate or a police officer of or above the rank of Assistant Inspector of Police, as required by Section 23(1) of the Evidence Act.
Chain of Custody — Electronic Evidence — Call Data Records
Electronic evidence, particularly subscriber data and call records, must be supported by a clear and reliable chain of custody that directly associates the accused with the device and the data in question. Deficiencies in the chain of custody do not automatically render the evidence inadmissible where the totality of credible evidence, including witness testimony, documentary records, and detailed call data matching the accused's described movements and times, provides a substantial and reliable link between the accused and the phone.
Proof of Facts — Oral Evidence — No Requirement for Audio-Visual Recording
The law does not impose a requirement that all facts be proved exclusively by documentary or electronic means. Under Sections 54 and 59 of the Evidence Act, facts may be proved by oral evidence, and matters capable of being seen or heard may be established by the testimony of a witness who claims to have seen or heard them. The absence of audio-visual recording is not fatal to the prosecution's case where credible oral testimony is available.
Defence of Insanity — Burden and Standard of Proof — Balance of Probabilities
The burden of proving the defence of insanity under Section 11 of the Penal Code Act lies on the accused, and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities. The accused must show, on all the evidence, that insanity is more likely than sanity. The essence of the defence is that the accused did not know what he was doing, or if he did, he did not know that it was wrong, by reason of a disease affecting the mind at the material time.

Legislation cited (14)

Cases cited (10)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Jamal Kiyemba A.K.A. Abdullah A.K.A. Tonny Kiyemba (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0001-2023) [2026] UGHCICD 8 (29 July 2026)
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.