Wakilii

Uganda v Mansur (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 5 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCICD 15 · 2023 Charges Partly Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial hearing and confirmation of charges under the International Crimes Division procedure
Decision
Charges confirmed against four accused persons (A2, A3, A6, A7) on various counts; three accused persons (A1, A4, A5) discharged; several counts dismissed as unsupported or duplicative; matter forwarded for trial on confirmed charges.

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 that the International Crimes Division has jurisdiction over human trafficking offences. Applying the Rome Statute standard requiring sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the charged crimes, the court confirmed charges against only Amid Hassan (A2), Kakanyero Robert (A3), Jamal Mohammed Alaru (A6), and Onencan Denis Abdullah (A7) for specific counts where evidence implicated them. Charges against Mansur Guma Aiswa (A1), Kassim Taban (A4), and Taban Siraji Ayisuga (A5) were dismissed for lack of evidence. Several counts were dismissed as duplicative or unsupported by the prosecution's summary.

Outcome

Charges confirmed against four accused persons (A2, A3, A6, A7) on various counts; three accused persons (A1, A4, A5) discharged; several counts dismissed as unsupported or duplicative; matter forwarded for trial on confirmed charges.

Facts

On 9 February 2019, security officers at Mpondwe Border intercepted four motorcycles carrying thirteen passengers attempting to cross into the Democratic Republic of Congo. The passengers comprised five adults and eight children from various districts in Uganda. Upon questioning, they lacked identification documents except for Amid Hassan (A2), who promised to retrieve documents but never returned. Interviews revealed that the passengers had been recruited from different locations and were allegedly being taken to DRC to study Islam and find employment. Investigations disclosed that accused persons had recruited victims with the intention of enrolling them into the Allied Defence Forces (ADF), a terrorist organisation. The accused were jointly indicted on thirteen counts of aggravated trafficking in children and three counts of trafficking in persons. Evidence showed various accused persons playing different roles: some as fathers handing over their children on promises of free education, others as transporters and facilitators moving victims from collection points through Kampala to the border.

Issues

  1. Whether the court has jurisdiction under the International Crimes Division to try offences under the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009.
  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons committed aggravated trafficking in children contrary to sections 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009.
  3. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused persons committed trafficking in persons contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009.
  4. Which accused persons should have charges confirmed against them in respect of each victim.

Orders

  • Charges in counts 1, 2 and 14 confirmed in respect of Amid Hassan (A2), Kakanyero Robert (A3), Jamal Muhammad Alaru (A6) and Onencan Denis Abdullah (A7).
  • Charges in counts 1, 2 and 14 dismissed in respect of Mansur Guma Aiswa (A1), Kassim Taban alias Baby (A4), and Taban Siraji Ayisuga (A5).
  • Charges in counts 3 and 7 confirmed for Amid Hassan (A2) and Jamal Muhammad Alaru (A6) and dismissed against A1, A3, A4, A5 and A7.
  • Charges in counts 4 and 5 dismissed (victims not mentioned in summary of case).
  • Charges in counts 6 and 15 confirmed for Amid Hassan (A2) and Jamal Muhammad Alaru (A6) and dismissed for A1, A3, A4, A5 and A7.
  • Charges in counts 8 and 9 confirmed for Amid Hassan (A2) and Jamal Muhammad Alaru (A6) and dismissed for A1, A3, A4, A5 and A7.
  • Charges in counts 10 and 13 dismissed as duplicative of counts 8 and 3 respectively.
  • Charges in counts 11 and 12 dismissed (not supported by summary of case).
  • Count 16 confirmed only for Amid Hassan (A2) and dismissed for all other accused.
  • Mansur Guma Aiswa (A1), Kassim Taban alias Baby (A4), and Taban Siraji Ayisuga (A5) discharged unless held on other lawful charges.
  • Amid Hassan (A2), Kakanyero Robert (A3), Jamal Muhammad Alaru (A6) and Onencan Denis Abdullah (A7) to be tried for confirmed charges.
  • Confirmed charges forwarded for trial.
  • Prosecution to amend indictment to reflect findings before commencement of trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Procedure — International Crimes Division — Jurisdiction — Trafficking in Persons Offences
The International Crimes Division of the High Court has jurisdiction to try offences under the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009, as human trafficking falls within the offences contemplated under Clause 6(1) of the High Court (International Crimes Division) Practice Directions 2011.
Criminal Procedure — Pre-trial and Confirmation of Charges — Evidential Standard — Substantial Grounds to Believe
At the pre-trial stage in the International Crimes Division, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the crime charged. This standard, drawn from Article 61(5) and 61(7) of the Rome Statute, means strong grounds for believing and requires evidence that is strong, concrete, and tangible in demonstrating a clear line of reasoning connecting the accused to the specific allegations.
Trafficking in Persons — Aggravated Trafficking in Children — Elements of Offence
The offence of aggravated trafficking in children requires proof of: (a) recruiting, receiving or transporting the victim; (b) the victim being a child under 18 years; (c) by means of fraud, deception or abuse of power or position of vulnerability; (d) for the purpose of exploitation; and (e) participation of the accused. However, where the victim is a child, section 3(3) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 provides that it is unnecessary to prove the element of means, and the child's consent or that of parents or guardians is irrelevant under section 3(4).
Trafficking in Persons — Exploitation — Use of Children in Armed Conflict and Illegal Activities
Under section 2(d) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009, exploitation includes use of a child in armed conflict and use of a person in illegal activities. Recruiting children with the intention that they be trained to fight for an armed organisation constitutes exploitation within the meaning of the Act, even where such recruitment is disguised as an offer of education.
Criminal Procedure — Joint Charging — Individual Criminal Responsibility
Where multiple accused persons are jointly indicted, the court must assess the evidence against each accused individually to determine whether each has a connection to the specific victims and whether the evidence establishes their individual participation in the alleged offences. Charges should not be confirmed against an accused person where the disclosed evidence shows no connection between that accused and the particular victim.
Criminal Procedure — Pre-trial — Disclosure Requirements — Reliance on Summary of Case
At the pre-trial stage, the court relies on the summary of the case and disclosed evidence. Where victims are not mentioned in the summary of the case, charges relating to those victims cannot be confirmed, as the court is bound by the prosecution's disclosure and cannot confirm charges on facts not presented in the summary.
Criminal Procedure — Amendment of Indictment — Defective Citation of Statutory Provisions
Where an indictment contains a defective citation of the statutory provision (such as citing section 3(a) instead of section 3(1)(a)), the court may order alteration of the indictment pursuant to section 50(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act, provided the required alteration can be made without injustice and the offence is disclosed by the evidence in the summary.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (9)

  • 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-0007-2021)
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99) 4 February 2005
  • Soering v United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88)
  • Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04/06-803-TEN)
  • Prosecutor v Bosco Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06)
  • Prosecutor v Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Mansur (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 5 of 2022) [2023] UGHCICD 15 (17 April 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.