Wakilii

Uganda v Muhwezi & 19 Others (Session Case 4 of 2021)

High Court · [2022] UGHCICD 5 · 2022 Charges Partly Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing following indictment before the International Crimes Division of the High Court
Decision
Six accused persons committed to trial on confirmed charges. Fourteen accused persons discharged for lack of sufficient evidence.

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 court held that the appropriate standard of proof in a confirmation of charges hearing is the Rome Statute standard of substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the offence charged. Applying this standard the court confirmed charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Children against A1 A2 A4 A7 A17 and A20 in various counts and the charge of Operating a Brothel against A1. The court dismissed the charge of Prostitution against all accused persons finding that the prosecution failed to establish that they habitually held themselves out for sexual intercourse for material gain. The court discharged thirteen accused persons where the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence.

Outcome

Six accused persons committed to trial on confirmed charges. Fourteen accused persons discharged for lack of sufficient evidence.

Facts

On 24 October 2020 police raided a lodge owned by A1 at Katwe Kinyoro Base Zone in Kampala following information that he was trafficking girls from upcountry for prostitution. Police arrested approximately 40 people including young girls and men. Several girls found at the lodge were discovered to be juveniles and gave statements that A1 had recruited them from upcountry by false promises of employment or harboured them after they had nowhere to stay and compelled them to engage in prostitution. Victims stated they had to pay A1 5000 shillings daily from their earnings. Some accused males were found in rooms having sexual intercourse with the victims. Medical examinations confirmed the victims were sexually active and several were below 18 years of age. A1 admitted owning the lodge and renting out rooms but denied knowledge that the premises were being used for prostitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence of Aggravated Trafficking in Children contrary to Sections 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009
  2. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence of Operating a Brothel contrary to Section 137 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120
  3. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence of Prostitution contrary to Sections 138 and 139 of the Penal Code Act Cap 120
  4. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence of Trafficking in Persons contrary to Section 3(1)(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009
  5. What is the applicable standard of proof in a confirmation of charges hearing before the International Crimes Division

Orders

  • Charges in counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 14 against A1 confirmed.
  • Charges in counts 3 and 4 against A2 confirmed.
  • Charges in count 3 against A7 and A20 confirmed.
  • Charge in count 5 against A4 confirmed.
  • Charge in count 6 against A17 confirmed.
  • Charges in counts 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 against A1 dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence.
  • Charge in count 2 against A15 dismissed for lack of evidence. A15 discharged forthwith.
  • Charge in count 4 against A19 dismissed for lack of evidence. A19 discharged forthwith.
  • All charges against A3, A5, A6, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14, A16 and A18 dismissed for lack of evidence. All discharged forthwith.
  • Discharges do not bar the prosecution from bringing the same charges upon obtaining additional cogent evidence.
  • A1, A2, A4, A7, A17 and A20 committed to the trial court on the charges as confirmed.

Rules and key headnotes

Trafficking in Persons — Standard of Proof — Confirmation of Charges Hearing
In a confirmation of charges hearing before the International Crimes Division the applicable standard of proof is the Rome Statute standard of substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the crimes charged. This standard is lower than the prima facie case standard used in ordinary criminal trials to determine whether an accused should offer a defence after the prosecution closes its case.
Trafficking in Persons — Substantial Grounds to Believe — Definition
The concept of substantial grounds to believe means that strong grounds have been shown for believing that the accused committed the offence charged. It is derived from European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence and applies in the context of pretrial confirmation of charges before the International Crimes Division.
Aggravated Trafficking in Children — Elements of the Offence
The offence of Aggravated Trafficking in Children under Sections 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 requires proof of five elements: the act of recruiting transporting transferring harbouring or receiving the victim; the aggravating factor of the victim being a child below 18 years; the means of deception or abuse of power or position of vulnerability; the purpose of exploitation; and participation of the accused in any of the acts means or purpose.
Trafficking in Persons — Child Victims — Proof of Means Element
Under Section 3(3) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 where the victim is a child below 18 years the recruitment transportation transfer harbouring or receipt of the child for the purpose of exploitation constitutes trafficking in persons even if the means element of deception threat coercion or abuse is not established. The means element need not be proved when the victim is a child.
Trafficking in Persons — Participation in the Chain of Events
An accused need not participate in all stages of trafficking in persons to be found guilty of the offence. Every participant in every stage of the process is guilty and if the prosecution establishes that the accused was part of the chain and committed only one act in the chain aimed at facilitating the commission of the offence the accused is guilty of trafficking in persons.
Operating a Brothel — Elements of the Offence
The offence of Operating a Brothel under Section 137 of the Penal Code Act requires proof that the accused kept a house room set of rooms or place of any kind; that the purpose of keeping the premises was for prostitution; and that the accused participated in the commission of the offence. Evidence that multiple victims practised prostitution on the premises paying a daily fee to the owner and that clients were found having sexual intercourse with victims during a police raid establishes all elements to the required standard.

Legislation cited (18)

Cases cited (9)

  • Uganda v Miria Rwigambwa (Session Case 6 of 2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (Session Case 7 of 2021)
  • Soering v. United Kingdom, Application No. 14038/88, judgement of 7th July 1987, European Court of Human Rights
  • The Prosecutor Vs Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN 14-05-2007
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey, Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4th February 2005
  • Umutoni v Uganda (Court of Appeal No. 147 of 2019)
  • Uganda v Mpagi Didas (Session Case 4 of 2020)
  • The State versus Koch (CC20/2017) (2018) NAHCMD290
  • Bernard Onyandi versus Republic [2018] eKLR

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Muhwezi & 19 Others (Session Case 4 of 2021) [2022] UGHCICD 5 (15 November 2022)
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.