Wakilii

Uganda v Kamoga Siraje & 13 Ors (Criminal Session Case No. HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC- No. 004 of 2015)

High Court · [2017] UGHCICD 1 · 2017 Conviction on terrorism; acquittal on murder and attempted murder AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
First instance criminal trial in the International Crimes Division on charges of terrorism and murder
Decision
Six accused convicted of terrorism and sentenced; eight accused acquitted and discharged

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

Held that six of the fourteen accused committed terrorism by threatening murder and attacking the reputations of members of a rival Muslim faction. The threats were made verbally in meetings, through public preaching, and via distributed fliers, and were intended to intimidate for religious and political purposes. The court acquitted all accused on two murder counts and one attempted murder count for lack of proof of participation. Convictions entered for A1, A2, A3, A4, A7, A8 on terrorism; A5, A6, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14 acquitted.

Outcome

Six accused convicted of terrorism and sentenced; eight accused acquitted and discharged

Facts

Between December 2013 and June 2015, a leadership dispute within the Tabliq Muslim sect led to division into two factions. One faction was led by Sheikh Yunus Kamoga and the other by Sheikh Hassan Kirya and Sheikh Mustafa Bahiga. The Kamoga faction held meetings at various locations in Kampala and Masaka to plan the elimination of perceived opponents. Fliers were printed and distributed at mosques naming six individuals as enemies of Islam to be avoided. Threatening statements were made verbally in meetings and via loudspeakers. On 28 December 2014, Sheikh Mustafa Bahiga was shot dead at Bwebajja Mosque by unidentified gunmen on a motorcycle. On 30 June 2015, Sheikh Hassan Ibrahim Kirya was shot dead at Bweyogerere. On 3 January 2015, the home of Sheikh Haruna Jjemba was attacked by gunmen. The fourteen accused were arrested and charged with terrorism, two counts of murder, and attempted murder. None of the assailants were identified and no murder weapon was recovered in any attack.

Issues

  1. Whether there was actual, attempted or threatened murder, maiming or attack on a person or group of persons in a public or private institution
  2. Whether the acts were for purposes of intimidating the public or a section of the public and for a religious, political, social or economic aim
  3. Whether the acts were committed indiscriminately without due regard to the safety of others or property
  4. Whether the accused persons participated in the commission of the offence either by direct involvement or complicity
  5. Whether the accused persons participated in unlawfully causing the death of Sheikh Mustafa Bahiga
  6. Whether the accused persons participated in unlawfully causing the death of Sheikh Ibrahim Hassan Kirya
  7. Whether there was an intention to cause the death of Sheikh Dr. Haruna Jjemba
  8. Whether that intention was manifested by overt acts
  9. Whether the accused persons had a common intention to commit any of the above offences

Orders

  • A1 (Sheikh Siraje Kawooya), A2 (Sheikh Muhamad Yunusu Kamoga), A3 (Sheikh Murta Mudde Bukenya), and A4 (Sheikh Fahad Kalungi) convicted on count No. 1 (terrorism) and sentenced to life imprisonment.
  • A7 (Kakande Yusuf alias Abdallah) and A8 (Sekayanja Abdul Salaam alias Kasimu Mulumba) convicted on count No. 1 (terrorism) and sentenced to 30 years imprisonment.
  • All fourteen accused acquitted on count No. 2 (murder of Sheikh Mustafa Bahiga).
  • All fourteen accused acquitted on count No. 3 (murder of Sheikh Hassan Ibrahim Kirya).
  • All fourteen accused acquitted on count No. 4 (attempted murder of Sheikh Dr. Haruna Jjemba).
  • A5 (Amir Kinene), A6 (Hakim Kinene Muswaswa), A9 (Sematimba Abdul Hamid Mubiru), A10 (Hamuza Kasirye), A11 (Twaha Ssekitto), A12 (Jjingo Rashid), A13 (Musa Issa Mubiru), and A14 (Iga George William) acquitted on all counts and set free forthwith unless held on other lawful charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Burden of proof — Standard of proof — Presumption of innocence
In all criminal cases, an accused person is presumed innocent until proved guilty or unless he or she pleads guilty. The burden of proving the charge is upon the prosecution throughout the trial to prove every essential ingredient of the offence beyond reasonable doubt and that burden never shifts to the accused.
Murder — Essential ingredients — Participation of the accused
The four essential ingredients of the offence of murder are: death of the deceased named in the indictment; death having been caused unlawfully; malice aforethought having prompted the death; and participation of the accused. Where the prosecution establishes the first three ingredients but fails to place the accused at the scene or time of the crime or to adduce circumstantial evidence irresistibly pointing to the accused's guilt, the fourth ingredient is not proved.
Circumstantial evidence — Standard of proof — Incompatibility with innocence
In a case depending exclusively upon circumstantial evidence, the court must find, before deciding on conviction, that the inculpatory facts are incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation upon any other hypothesis than that of guilt. Where the evidence leaves several possibilities to point to other perpetrators, the standard is not met.
Terrorism — Threatened murder as act of terrorism — Oral evidence
Threatened murder may constitute an act of terrorism under section 7(2)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002. Where witnesses testify to direct conversations in which accused persons threatened to kill named individuals, such oral evidence is direct evidence under sections 58 and 59 of the Evidence Act, not hearsay, and is admissible to prove threatened murder where the witnesses knew the accused well and identified them in court.
Terrorism — Intimidation of a section of the public — Religious institution
An organization or movement within a religious community may constitute an 'institution' for purposes of section 7(2)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 even if it is not a registered legal entity. Threats and attacks directed at members of a faction within such an organization, accompanied by distribution of fliers and public preaching against them, constitute intimidation of a section of the public for religious and political purposes.
Terrorism — Indiscriminate acts — Meaning and application
Acts of terrorism are committed indiscriminately within the meaning of the Anti-Terrorism Act where they are aggressive, determined, and persistent; where they do not target a specific military objective; where they are delivered in a manner affecting many people both within and outside the targeted group, such as through preaching on loudspeakers, distribution of fliers in mosques, and public meetings; and where they show no regard for the safety or reputations of persons affected.
Joint offenders — Common intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act
Where two or more persons form a common intention to prosecute an unlawful purpose in conjunction with one another, and in the prosecution of that purpose an offence is committed of such a nature that its commission was a probable consequence of the prosecution of that purpose, each of them is deemed to have committed the offence. In terrorism cases involving multiple accused, proof that accused persons shared a common intention to execute an unlawful purpose is sufficient to establish their respective culpability.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (18)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 372
  • Okethi Okale & Ors v Republic [1965] EA 555
  • Lubogo & Ors v Uganda [1967] EA 440
  • Joseph Kiiza & Ors v Uganda [1978] HCB 279
  • Uganda v Kassim Obura [1981] HCB 9
  • Gusambizi s/o Wesonga v R (1948) 15 EACA 65
  • R v Tubere [1945] 12 EACA 63
  • Bogere Moses & Anor v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 1997)
  • Mawanda Edward v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 4 of 1999)
  • R v Kipkering Arap Koske & Anor (1949) 16 EACA 135
  • Simon Musoke v R [1958] EA 715
  • Mureeba Janet & Others v Uganda (Supreme Court Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2003)
  • Akbar Hussein Godi v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2013)
  • Uganda v Kato Kajubi (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 39 of 2010)
  • Mbatudde Betty v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 2004)
  • Sunday Kala Alagba v The King 19 N. L. R. 128 (P.C. 1950)
  • Rex v Dominiko Omenyi s/o Obuka 10 EACA 81

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kamoga Siraje & 13 Ors (Criminal Session Case No. HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC- No. 004 of 2015) [2017] UGHCICD 1 (21 August 2017)
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.