Wakilii

Uganda v Muwonge & 13 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 8 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCICD 9 · 2024 Charges Partly Confirmed; Five Accused Acquitted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges in a criminal prosecution before the International Crimes Division
Decision
Eight accused persons (A1, A2, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14) committed for trial on confirmed charges; five accused persons (A3, A4, A5, A6, A7) acquitted due to insufficient 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 confirmed terrorism charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 against Muwonge Yusuf (A1) for unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device and against Kiyemba Ismail (A2) for unlawful possession of materials for making explosives, both with intent to intimidate the public. The Court also confirmed charges of belonging to a terrorist organisation against eight accused persons based on evidence of their membership in or association with the Allied Democratic Forces. The Court declined to confirm charges against five accused persons for insufficient evidence and ordered their acquittal. The remaining accused were referred for trial.

Outcome

Eight accused persons (A1, A2, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14) committed for trial on confirmed charges; five accused persons (A3, A4, A5, A6, A7) acquitted due to insufficient evidence

Facts

On 4 November 2021, A1 Muwonge Yusuf was found in possession of an improvised explosive device in a blue chest bag at his sister's home in Kireka-Bbira village, Wakiso District. A1 admitted in his statement that he had been given the bomb by one Abdallah Wanjusi with instructions to detonate it in the presence of security personnel. A1 also confessed to being part of a group of suicide bombers involved in prior attacks. On 30 November 2021, A2 Kiyemba Ismail was found in possession of materials for making improvised explosive devices at Kijapani village, Wakiso District. A2 admitted making a bomb for one Muzafaru who used it in the Swift Safari Bus bombing. A2 had agreed to make a second, higher-voltage bomb for Kiyemba Sharifu. Evidence included phone analysis reports linking multiple accused to the Allied Democratic Forces, statements from local officials identifying accused as members of meetings promoting an Islamic state, and forensic analysis confirming the recovered materials could be used to manufacture improvised explosive devices.

Issues

  1. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution substantiated charges of terrorism contrary to s.7(1)(b) and (2)(j) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 against Muwonge Yusuf (A1) and Kiyemba Ismail (A2).
  2. Whether the evidence established that A1 was in unlawful possession of an improvised explosive device with intent to intimidate the public for political, religious, social or economic aims.
  3. Whether the evidence established that A2 was in unlawful possession of materials for making improvised explosive devices with intent to intimidate the public for political, religious, social or economic aims.
  4. Whether the evidence substantiated charges of belonging or professing to belong to a terrorist organisation (ADF) contrary to s.11(1)(a) and (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 against all fourteen accused persons.
  5. Whether charge and caution statements recorded 15 days after arrest were admissible and valid.
  6. Whether the prosecution established common intention among accused persons to belong to the ADF terrorist organisation.

Orders

  • Charges in counts 1 and 2 of terrorism contrary to s.7(1)(b) and (2)(j) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 confirmed against A1 Muwonge Yusuf and A2 Kiyemba Ismail.
  • Charges in count 3 of belonging to a terrorist organisation contrary to s.11(1)(a) of the ATA confirmed against A2 Kiyemba Ismail, A8 Wambedde Twaha, A9 Nsubuga Nadir Faisal, A10 Ishaq Jero, A11 Kiryowa Jamadah Afan, A12 Ssebunya Hassan, A13 Musinguzi Sadiq and A14 Bbumba Ammar.
  • Accused persons against whom charges are confirmed are referred for trial before the designated trial panel.
  • Charges declined to be confirmed against A3 Bogere Muniru, A4 Jjuko Bashir Kiwanuka, A5 Kisiitu Mohammed, A6 Bakyayita Hamuza and A7 Matiwa Huzaifa Ismail for insufficient evidence.
  • A3 Bogere Muniru, A4 Jjuko Bashir Kiwanuka, A5 Kisiitu Mohammed, A6 Bakyayita Hamuza and A7 Matiwa Huzaifa Ismail acquitted.
  • Proceedings' records and decision to be forwarded to the Head of the International Crimes Division for next steps.

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism — Standard of Proof at Pre-Trial Confirmation Stage
At the pre-trial confirmation stage, the prosecution bears the responsibility of presenting enough evidence to convince the Court that there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual committed each of the offences charged, and the evidence must be analyzed and assessed as a whole.
Charge and Caution Statements — Validity and Admissibility
A charge and caution statement recorded after a delay from the date of arrest is valid and admissible where the police officer properly charged the accused, informed him of the nature of the charge, cautioned him in the prescribed form under the Evidence (Statements to Police Officers) Rules, and the accused answered 'yes' to understanding the charge.
Terrorism — Unlawful Possession of Explosives — Intent to Intimidate the Public
An accused is found to have had intent to intimidate a section of the public for religious aims where he possessed an improvised explosive device with instructions to detonate it in the presence of security personnel, and where he admitted being part of a group of suicide bombers and espoused beliefs from Islamic literature that encourage Muslims to die as heroes when killing non-Muslims who do not support Islamic expansion.
Terrorism — Materials for Making Improvised Explosive Devices
Where an accused confesses to making a bomb that was used in a public attack and agrees to make a higher-voltage bomb for future use, knowing how the first bomb was utilized and how the second was intended to be used, there are substantial grounds to believe the accused intended to intimidate the public.
Common Intention — Belonging to a Terrorist Organisation
To establish common intention under s.20 of the Penal Code Act, it must be shown that accused persons shared a common intention to pursue a specific unlawful purpose which led to the commission of the offence, and phone analysis reports showing communication between accused and evidence of meetings promoting the aims of a terrorist organisation can establish common intention to belong to that organisation.

Legislation cited (15)

Cases cited (4)

  • Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462
  • Miller v Minister of Pensions [1947] 2 All ER 327
  • Prosecutor v Katanga & Ngudjolo Chui ICC-01/04-01/07
  • PC Ismail Kisegerwa v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1978)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Muwonge & 13 Others (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 8 of 2023) [2024] UGHCICD 9 (27 February 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.