Wakilii

Uganda v Kisekka & 3 Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT 8 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 3 · 2025 Charges Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial hearing and confirmation of charges for terrorism and murder
Decision
All accused persons committed for trial on confirmed charges of terrorism and murder

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 charges of terrorism and murder against all four accused persons in the killing of Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Namazzi Kagezi on 30 March 2015. The court found sufficient evidence establishing substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons, acting with common intention, indiscriminately murdered a senior government official in a public place for purposes of influencing the government or intimidating the public, using firearms obtained from Democratic Republic of Congo. All accused were committed for trial on confirmed charges.

Outcome

All accused persons committed for trial on confirmed charges of terrorism and murder

Facts

On 30 March 2015 between 7:00-8:00 pm at Kiwatule, Kampala, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Joan Namazzi Kagezi was shot dead by unknown assailants riding motorcycles while she had parked her official vehicle to buy fruits with three of her children. The assailants fled toward Najjera and disappeared. In 2015, police arrested A2 who revealed participation with A3, who remained a fugitive until 2023. In August 2023, A3 was arrested in Wandegeya. In October 2023, A1 was arrested in Luwero and confessed to participating with A2, A3 and A4 as a backup team. A1 revealed they visited a witch doctor in Kayunga to perform rituals preventing arrest. Investigators obtained mobile network clusters showing A3 and A2's phones were within Kiwatule at the time of murder. A1 recorded a charge and caution statement detailing all accused persons' participation in the murder organized from Democratic Republic of Congo involving payment of US$200,000.

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)(a) and (2)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act Cap. 120
  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each of the accused persons committed the crime of murder contrary to Sections 171 and 172 of the Penal Code Act Cap. 128

Orders

  • Charges in Count 1 (terrorism) confirmed against Kisekka Daniel Kiwanuka (A1), Kibuuka John aka Musa (A2), Massajjage John aka Mubiru Brian aka Badru aka Chongo (A3) and Nasur Abdallah Mugonole (A4)
  • Charges in Count 2 (murder) confirmed against all four accused persons
  • Prosecution directed to amend the indictment to reflect correct Chapters and Sections as per the Revised Edition
  • All accused persons forwarded for trial on the confirmed charges

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism — Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof — Substantial Grounds to Believe
At the pre-trial confirmation of charges stage in terrorism cases before the International Crimes Division, the prosecution must adduce sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the crimes charged, meaning strong grounds for believing, demonstrating concrete and tangible evidence drawing a clear line of reasoning connecting the accused to specific allegations.
Terrorism — Elements of Offence — Purpose of Influencing Government or Intimidating Public
A brutal armed attack on a senior government official actively handling high-profile prosecutions and driving an official vehicle in which the assailants check in the vehicle to confirm death constitutes an act intended to influence the government and create fear in the public, satisfying the element that the murder was committed for purposes of influencing government or intimidating the public or a section thereof.
Terrorism — Indiscriminate Attack — Attack in Public Place
An attack constitutes an indiscriminate murder without due regard to the safety of others or property where the attack occurs in a very busy business centre with rapid gunshots on a helpless non-combatant victim, shattering the victim's vehicle, regardless of whether the attackers targeted a specific individual, as the attackers had no regard to the people and their property in the vicinity.
Terrorism — Religious, Political, Social or Economic Aim — Payment for Commission of Offence
Where attackers are promised substantial money for murdering a victim, are organized and coordinated, possess guns acquired from another country, and evade arrest for years, the court may find that they were brought together by a common aim which may be religious, political, social or economical, and are not merely ordinary criminals.
Accomplice Evidence — Admissibility — Confession Implicating Co-accused
Where an accused person confesses and implicates himself in the commission of an offence together with other co-accused persons, such confession is admissible evidence against the co-accused persons, particularly where corroborated by circumstantial evidence including mobile network data, witness testimony, and conduct after the offence such as visiting a witch doctor and evading arrest.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act — Shared Unlawful Purpose
Under the doctrine of common intention pursuant to Section 20 of the Penal Code Act, accused persons are culpable where they shared a common intention to pursue a specific unlawful purpose which led to the commission of the offence, which may be proved by drawing inferences from surrounding circumstances including presence, actions, and omission to dissociate from the assault, and the common intention may develop in the course of events though it might not have been present from the start.

Legislation cited (8)

Cases cited (11)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 372
  • Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (Criminal Case No. 6 of 2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (Criminal Case No. 7 of 2021)
  • Mamatkulov and Askorov v Turkey (2005) Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99
  • Soering v United Kingdom (1989) Application No. 14038/88
  • Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04/06)
  • Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06)
  • Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)
  • Kintu Bakali & Others v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2009)
  • PC Ismail Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kisekka & 3 Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT 8 of 2024) [2025] UGHCICD 3 (24 March 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.