Wakilii

Uganda v Katumba Abdu and Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT-0004-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 12 · 2025 Charges Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial hearing and confirmation of charges in terrorism prosecution before the International Crimes Division
Decision
Charges confirmed and accused persons committed for trial before the trial chamber

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 (International Crimes Division) confirmed terrorism charges against eleven accused persons under Section 6(1)(b) and 3(i) of the Anti Terrorism Act Cap. 120. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons unlawfully possessed materials for making improvised explosive devices (petrol bombs) for purposes of influencing the government and intimidating the public during a planned demonstration on 8 May 2023. The court applied the Rome Statute standard of proof for pre-trial confirmation of charges and found that the prosecution had met the threshold of establishing substantial grounds to believe each accused committed the offence charged.

Outcome

Charges confirmed and accused persons committed for trial before the trial chamber

Facts

On 7 May 2023 at approximately 11:00 pm, police received intelligence that a group was manufacturing bombs at a house in Nabweru North, Nansana Municipality, Wakiso District, to be used during a planned demonstration on 8 May 2023. Police conducted an operation and arrested five accused persons (A1, A2, A3, A4, A7) at the house of Katumba Abdu (A1). A sixth accused (A5) was arrested when he arrived to collect the bombs for distribution. A search of the premises recovered items including fireworks, bottles containing black substances and metallic nails, jerrycans with suspected petrol, and other materials. Forensic analysis confirmed the items contained substances capable of making improvised explosive devices and petrol bombs. The accused persons allegedly belonged to a group called "Go Slow Bobi Ahead" within the National Unity Platform (NUP) political party. According to statements, they had met at NUP headquarters in Kamwokya and planned to make petrol bombs to counter police during the planned demonstration. Two additional accused (A10 and A11) were arrested for allegedly training the group and assisting in procurement of materials. Three more accused (A6, A8, A9) were arrested after searches of their homes recovered similar materials and digital forensic analysis linked them to the group through WhatsApp communications.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each of the accused persons committed the crime of terrorism contrary to Section 6(1)(b) and 3(i) of the Anti Terrorism Act Cap. 120.
  2. Whether the accused persons were in unlawful possession of explosives, ammunition, bomb or materials for making explosives (IEDs/petrol bombs), indiscriminately and without due regard to the safety of others or property.
  3. Whether the accused persons acted for purposes of influencing the government or intimidating the public or a section of the public for a political aim.
  4. Whether each accused person participated in the unlawful possession of explosives, ammunition, bomb or materials for making explosives.

Orders

  • Charges confirmed against each of the accused persons.
  • Accused persons forwarded for trial on the confirmed charges.
  • Prosecution directed to amend the indictment to reflect the correct provision of the law under the Revised Edition.

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism — Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof
In pre-trial confirmation hearings before the International Crimes Division, the prosecution must establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence charged, which means strong grounds for believing, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt as required at trial.
Terrorism — Elements of Offence — Unlawful Possession of Explosives
Under Section 6(3)(i) of the Anti Terrorism Act Cap. 120, the offence of terrorism by unlawful possession of explosives is complete when a person possesses materials capable of making explosives for purposes of influencing government or intimidating the public, regardless of whether the explosives were actually assembled, completed, or used.
Terrorism — Purpose Element — Political Aim
The purpose element of terrorism under Section 6(3)(i) of the Anti Terrorism Act is established when accused persons form a group with the goal of ending the rule of the government, plan to make bombs, procure materials for that purpose, and begin assembling them, even if the bombs are not completed or used.
International Crimes Division — Jurisdiction — Terrorism Offences
The International Crimes Division of the High Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act Cap. 120 pursuant to Clause 6(1) of the High Court (International Crimes Division) Practice Directions 2011, which provides for jurisdiction over terrorism and other international crimes.
Pre-trial Procedure — Rome Statute Standards — Application in Uganda
Uganda, having signed, ratified, and domesticated the Rome Statute through the International Criminal Court Act 2010, is bound by the principle of pacta sunt servanda to apply Rome Statute standards in pre-trial proceedings before the International Crimes Division, including the requirement to hold a pre-trial hearing to confirm charges as provided in Article 61 of the Rome Statute.
Pre-trial Proceedings — Admissibility of Evidence — Documentary and Summary Evidence
At the pre-trial confirmation stage, the prosecution may rely on documentary or summary evidence and need not call witnesses expected to testify at trial; the court evaluates the disclosed evidence as a whole to determine whether there are substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the offence.
Terrorism — Participation — Joint Criminal Enterprise
Where multiple accused persons are members of a group with a common political aim, participate in planning and procurement of materials for making explosives, and some are arrested in the act of assembling the devices while others are linked through statements and digital forensic evidence, each may be held culpable for participation in the terrorism offence based on their respective roles in the joint enterprise.

Legislation cited (11)

Cases cited (11)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372
  • Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0006-2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007-2021)
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99) (ECtHR, 4 February 2005)
  • Soering v United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88) (ECtHR)
  • Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04/06-803-TEN, 14 May 2007)
  • Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06)
  • Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)
  • Prosecutor v Akayesu (Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Judgment, 2 September 1998)
  • Tuwomoi Versus Uganda (1975) EA

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Katumba Abdu and Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT-0004-2024) [2025] UGHCICD 12 (22 May 2025)
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.