Wakilii

Uganda v Kiyemba (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2023)

High Court · [2023] UGHCICD 12 · 2023 Charges Confirmed for Trial AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing following committal to the High Court International Crimes Division
Decision
All charges confirmed and accused committed for trial before the International Crimes Division

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

Court confirmed all three charges against the accused for trial. Held that at the pre-trial confirmation stage the standard is whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the offences charged, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused's admissions in his statements and supporting witness evidence established substantial grounds to believe he rendered support to ADF by recruiting members, belonged to or professed to belong to ADF, and solicited support for ADF by publicly chanting support for the organization.

Outcome

All charges confirmed and accused committed for trial before the International Crimes Division

Facts

The accused was arrested on 29 January 2022 at the Old Taxi Park in Kampala after shouting support for the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a listed terrorist organization, on Ben Kiwanuka Street. Upon arrest, the accused made statements admitting to being a member, supporter, trainer and recruiter for ADF since 2006. He admitted to recruiting approximately 50 people including his 14-year-old son Jamil Abdullah Buyondo. Call data records indicated the accused had been in communication with known ADF recruiter Musa Yosa in Busia. The accused stated his intention was to draw government attention to negotiate an end to the war in DRC without bloodshed. He was charged with three offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 and committed to the High Court International Crimes Division for a pre-trial confirmation hearing.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed each of the crimes charged.
  2. Whether the accused rendered support to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a terrorist organization.
  3. Whether the accused belongs to or professes to belong to the ADF, a terrorist organization.
  4. Whether the accused solicited or invited support for the ADF, a terrorist organization.

Orders

  • Charges in Count 1 (rendering support to a terrorist organization contrary to section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002) confirmed.
  • Charges in Count 2 (belonging or professing to belong to a terrorist organization contrary to section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002) confirmed.
  • Charges in Count 3 (soliciting or inviting support for a terrorist organization contrary to section 11(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002) confirmed.
  • Accused forwarded for trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism Offences — Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof
At the pre-trial confirmation of charges stage before the International Crimes Division, the standard of proof is not proof beyond reasonable doubt but whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed each of the crimes charged, as provided under Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute.
Terrorism Offences — Pre-trial Procedure — Presumption of Innocence
The constitutional presumption of innocence does not apply at the pre-trial confirmation of charges stage because the court is not determining the guilt or innocence of the accused but only whether there are substantial grounds to believe the offences were committed to warrant committal for trial.
Terrorism Offences — Pre-trial Confirmation — Evidentiary Standard
The concept of 'substantial grounds to believe' in the context of pre-trial confirmation of charges means 'strong grounds for believing' and requires evidence that is strong, concrete and tangible in demonstrating or drawing a clear line of reasoning connecting the accused to the specific allegations.
Terrorism Offences — Rendering Support to Terrorist Organization — Elements
The offence of rendering support to a terrorist organization under section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 is established where a person renders support knowing or having reason to believe the support will be used for preparation, commission or instigation of acts of terrorism. Recruiting members for a terrorist organization and training them constitutes rendering support.
Terrorism Offences — Belonging to Terrorist Organization — Proof
An accused's admission of membership in a terrorist organization, corroborated by public declarations of support and communication with known members of the organization as evidenced by call data records, constitutes sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused belongs to or professes to belong to that terrorist organization.
Terrorism Offences — Soliciting Support for Terrorist Organization — Conduct
Public chanting and declarations such as 'long live ADF' made deliberately in English and Luganda near government officials with the intention of drawing attention to a terrorist organization constitutes soliciting or inviting support for that organization under section 11(1)(b) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
Pre-trial Procedure — Documentary Evidence — Admissibility
At the pre-trial confirmation stage, the court is not concerned with the admissibility of documentary evidence but rather whether the documents contain sufficient evidence to support the charges preferred against the accused. Questions of authenticity and certification of documents are matters for determination at trial.

Legislation cited (19)

Cases cited (14)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 ALL ER 327
  • Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0006-2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007 of 2021)
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99)
  • Soering v United Kingdom (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 Katonga and Mathien Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-01/07
  • Uganda versus Aggrey Kiyingi & 2 Others
  • Fredrick Zaabwe v Orient Bank & 5 Others (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 2006)
  • Makula International Limited v His Eminence Cardinal Nsubuga & Another (Civil Appeal No. 4 of 1981)
  • Uganda v Matanda Richard Wamukota (HCCS No. 45 of 2015)
  • R v M'Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kiyemba (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2023) [2023] UGHCICD 12 (2 May 2023)
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.