Wakilii

Uganda v Kyoto Abdul Rashid alias Njovu alias Tembo (HCT-00-ICD-PT-9-2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 7 · 2025 Charges Partly Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Confirmation of charges hearing in the International Crimes Division following indictment for terrorism, murder, aggravated robbery, and belonging to a terrorist organisation
Decision
Six charges confirmed against the accused and committed for trial; six charges not confirmed

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 confirmed six of twelve charges against the accused at a confirmation of charges hearing. The court applied the ICC standard of substantial grounds to believe, holding that the prosecution established sufficient evidence linking the accused to the Queen Elizabeth National Park attack (three counts of murder, three counts of aggravated robbery, and two counts of terrorism) and to membership in the ADF terrorist organisation. The court declined to confirm charges relating to a separate attack on the Mpondwe-Kasese Highway, finding insufficient evidence linking the accused to those incidents. The court ordered amendment of Count 1 to include Section 7(2)(z) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Outcome

Six charges confirmed against the accused and committed for trial; six charges not confirmed

Facts

The accused was indicted on twelve counts arising from two separate incidents in October 2023. On 12 October 2023, a lorry transporting onions along the Kikorongo-Bwera Road was ambushed, resulting in two deaths and two serious injuries. On 17 October 2023, a tourist vehicle in Queen Elizabeth National Park was ambushed, resulting in three deaths (two British/South African tourists and their Ugandan tour guide). The accused was arrested on 1 November 2023 by UPDF Marine Forces on Lake Edward following a shoot-out. Upon arrest, he was found in possession of property belonging to the Queen Elizabeth National Park victims, including passports, bank cards, and identity documents. The accused made a charge and caution statement admitting his involvement in the Queen Elizabeth National Park attack and his membership in the ADF terrorist organisation. The prosecution alleged the accused was an ADF commander who had received military training in the DRC and led one of two groups that entered Uganda to carry out retaliatory attacks following Operation Shujaa, a joint UPDF-Congolese military offensive against ADF camps in the DRC.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed terrorism contrary to Section 7(2)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 in relation to all alleged victims.
  2. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed terrorism contrary to Section 7(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 in relation to both motor vehicles.
  3. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed murder contrary to Sections 188 and 189 of the Penal Code Act in relation to all alleged victims.
  4. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed aggravated robbery contrary to Sections 285 and 286(2) of the Penal Code Act.
  5. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused belongs to a terrorist organisation contrary to Section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  6. What is the appropriate standard of proof at a confirmation of charges hearing in the International Crimes Division.

Orders

  • Count 1 (Terrorism contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b)) declined to be confirmed.
  • Count 2 (Terrorism contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(k)) confirmed in respect of Barlow David James, Geyer Emmarentia Celia, and Alyai Eric only; declined to confirm in respect of Matovu Joseph and Nzowera Biira Paralesi.
  • Prosecution ordered to amend the indictment in Count 2 to exclude Matovu Joseph and Nzowera Biira Paralesi.
  • Count 3 (Terrorism contrary to Section 7(1)(a) and 7(2)(n)) confirmed in respect of motor vehicle Reg. No. UBF 303C only; declined to confirm in respect of motor vehicle Reg. No. UBM 624L.
  • Prosecution ordered to amend the indictment in Count 3 to exclude motor vehicle Reg. No. UBM 624L.
  • Count 4 (Murder of Matovu Joseph) declined to be confirmed.
  • Count 5 (Murder of Nzowera Biira Paralesi) declined to be confirmed.
  • Count 6 (Murder of Barlow David James) confirmed.
  • Count 7 (Murder of Geyer Emmarentia Cecilia) confirmed.
  • Count 8 (Murder of Alyai Eric) confirmed.
  • Count 9 (Aggravated robbery from Barlow David James) confirmed.
  • Count 10 (Aggravated robbery from Geyer Emmarentia Cecilia) confirmed.
  • Count 11 (Aggravated robbery from Alyai Eric) confirmed.
  • Count 12 (Belonging to a terrorist organisation) confirmed.
  • Prosecution ordered to amend the indictment relating to Count 1 to include Section 7(2)(z) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 as amended in the statement of offence.

Rules and key headnotes

Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof — International Crimes Division
At a confirmation of charges hearing in the International Crimes Division, the applicable standard of proof is whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the crimes charged, as outlined in Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute. This standard is lower than the prima facie case standard required to put an accused to their defence at trial. The standard requires concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning the specific allegations.
Terrorism — Elements of Offence — Section 7(2)(k) Anti-Terrorism Act
To establish terrorism under Section 7(2)(k) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must prove: (1) acts of violence aimed at causing the death of a civilian not engaged in armed conflict were committed with the aim of influencing the government or intimidating the public; (2) such acts were committed for a political, religious, social or economic aim; (3) such acts were indiscriminately committed without due regard to safety of others; and (4) participation of the accused person.
Terrorism — Elements of Offence — Section 7(2)(n) Anti-Terrorism Act
To establish terrorism under Section 7(2)(n) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must prove: (1) acts of serious damage to property were committed indiscriminately without due regard to the safety of others or property, intended to influence the government or to intimidate the public; (2) such acts were committed for a political, religious, social or economic aim; and (3) participation of the accused.
Confessions — Charge and Caution Statements — Admissibility and Weight
A charge and caution statement in which an accused person admits participation in criminal acts constitutes admissible evidence of the accused's involvement and may be relied upon to establish the elements of the offence charged, including participation, intent, and the circumstances of the commission of the offence.
Recent Possession — Presumption of Theft
When evidence of recent possession of stolen property is proved beyond reasonable doubt, it creates a very strong presumption of involvement in theft. If there is no innocent explanation for the possession, the evidence becomes even more reliable than eyewitness identification in a nocturnal event.
Murder — Malice Aforethought — Inference from Circumstances
In cases of homicide, the intention and knowledge of the accused person at the time of committing the offence is rarely proved by direct evidence. The court may deduce the intention or knowledge from the circumstances surrounding the killing, including the mode of killing, the weapon used, and the part of the body assailed and injured. The use of deadly weapons such as guns, shooting multiple times at vital organs at close range without regard for the safety of victims, clearly indicates malice aforethought.
Belonging to a Terrorist Organisation — Meaning of 'Belong'
The word 'belong' in Section 11(1)(a) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 should be given its ordinary meaning, that is, being a member of a club, organisation, or set. To establish the offence of belonging to a terrorist organisation, the prosecution must prove: (1) the existence of a terrorist organisation; (2) the terrorist organisation must be listed in the Act; and (3) the accused person must belong to, or profess to belong to, the terrorist organisation listed in the second Schedule of the Act.

Legislation cited (21)

Cases cited (10)

  • Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0006-2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007-2021)
  • Soering v. United Kingdom, Application No. 14038/88 (ECHR, 7th July 1987)
  • The Prosecutor Vs Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, of 4th February 2005, (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99)
  • Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, ICC-01/14-01/21, 9th December 2021
  • Nanyonjo Harriet and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2002)
  • Bogere Moses v Uganda [1998] UGSC 22
  • Uganda v Hussein Hassan Agade and 12 Others [2016] UGHCCRD 5
  • Uganda v Nansubuga Nuliat and 2 Others (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0009-2023)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kyoto Abdul Rashid alias Njovu alias Tembo (HCT-00-ICD-PT-9-2024) [2025] UGHCICD 7 (30 June 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.