Wakilii

Uganda v Mbazira & 7 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 3 of 2018)

High Court · [2024] UGHCICD 4 · 2024 Charges Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial hearing and confirmation of charges in a terrorism prosecution before the International Crimes Division
Decision
All eight accused persons committed for trial on confirmed charges of terrorism, murder, aggravated robbery, aiding and abetting terrorism, and belonging to a terrorist organisation

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 all charges against the eight accused persons, finding substantial grounds to believe they committed terrorism, murder, and aggravated robbery in the killing of AIGP Andrew Felix Kaweesi and two other police officers on 17 March 2017. The court held that the attack was carried out by members of the Allied Democratic Forces for political and religious aims to intimidate the public and influence the government, and was indiscriminate without regard to public safety. All accused were committed for trial on the confirmed charges.

Outcome

All eight accused persons committed for trial on confirmed charges of terrorism, murder, aggravated robbery, aiding and abetting terrorism, and belonging to a terrorist organisation

Facts

On 17 March 2017 at approximately 9:00 am, AIGP Andrew Felix Kaweesi, Assistant Inspector General of Police and Public Relations Officer, left his home at Kulambiro in motor vehicle UP477 driven by Constable Godfrey Mambewa with bodyguard Corporal Kenneth Erau. A few metres from the home, armed men riding on two motorcycles attacked the vehicle, spraying it with bullets and killing all three occupants instantly. The assailants opened the vehicle doors and fired again at close range to ensure the victims were dead, then stole the bodyguard's SMG rifle and pistol before fleeing on the motorcycles. Police investigations led to the arrest of eight accused persons who allegedly admitted in their statements to belonging to the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and participating in planning and executing the attack. Technical analysis placed several accused near the scene before, during, and after the attack. The accused were charged with terrorism, murder, aggravated robbery, and related offences.

Issues

  1. Whether the International Crimes Division has jurisdiction to try offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  2. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each accused person committed the offence of terrorism contrary to Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002.
  3. Whether the murder of AIGP Andrew Felix Kaweesi was committed for purposes of influencing the government or intimidating the public.
  4. Whether the murder was committed for a political or religious aim.
  5. Whether the attack was indiscriminate and without due regard to the safety of others or property.
  6. Whether the accused persons were directly involved or complicit in the murder.
  7. Whether there is sufficient evidence to confirm charges of murder, aggravated robbery, aiding and abetting terrorism, and belonging to a terrorist organisation against the accused persons.

Orders

  • Charges in Count 1 (terrorism) and the alternative count (murder) confirmed against A1 through A7.
  • Charges in Counts 2, 3 (murder of the two other victims) and 4 (aggravated robbery) confirmed against A1 through A7.
  • Charge in Count 5 (aiding and abetting terrorism) confirmed against A8.
  • Charge in Count 6 (belonging to a terrorist organisation) confirmed against all accused A1 through A8.
  • All accused persons forwarded for trial on the confirmed charges.

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism — Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof
At a pre-trial confirmation hearing under the International Crimes Division Rules, the prosecution must establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the crimes charged, meaning strong grounds for believing, which requires concrete and tangible evidence demonstrating a clear line of reasoning connecting the accused to the specific allegations.
Terrorism — Elements of the Offence — Anti-Terrorism Act Section 7
To establish terrorism under Section 7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must prove: (a) murder of a person; (b) the murder was committed to influence the government or intimidate the public; (c) for a political, religious, social or economic aim; (d) the murder was committed indiscriminately without due regard to safety of others or property; and (e) the accused were directly involved or complicit in the murder.
Common Intention — Section 20 Penal Code Act — Joint Enterprise
Under the doctrine of common intention in Section 20 of the Penal Code Act, accused persons who share a common intention to pursue a specific unlawful purpose which leads to commission of an offence are equally culpable as principal offenders, even if not physically present at the scene, unless they dissociate themselves from the crime. Common intention may be proved by drawing inferences from surrounding circumstances including presence, actions, and omission to dissociate.
Pre-Trial Proceedings — Admissibility of Evidence — Trial Within a Trial
At a pre-trial confirmation hearing, the court is not clothed with the mandate to assess the admissibility of contested evidence such as charge and caution statements, which would require conducting a trial within a trial. That assessment is reserved for the trial judge or panel if charges are confirmed.
International Law — Rome Statute — Pacta Sunt Servanda
Uganda, having signed, ratified and domesticated the Rome Statute through enactment of the International Criminal Court Act 2010, is bound under the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept) to perform its obligations under that instrument, including adopting the standards applicable in the International Criminal Court in proceedings before the International Crimes Division.
Circumstantial Evidence — Evaluation as a Whole
In determining whether the prosecution has met the required evidential threshold at a pre-trial confirmation hearing, the court must analyse and assess the evidence presented by the prosecution as a whole, not in isolation.

Legislation cited (22)

Cases cited (11)

  • 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)
  • 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 Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui (ICC-01/04-01/07)
  • No. 441 PC Ismail Kisegerwa and Another v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)
  • Abdurashid Mbazira and 21 Others v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 2010 of 2017)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Mbazira & 7 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 3 of 2018) [2024] UGHCICD 4 (16 April 2024)
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.