Wakilii

Uganda v Muwonge & 4 Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT 1 of 2024)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 1 · 2025 Charges Partly Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges in terrorism prosecution
Decision
Pre-trial charges partially confirmed — trial to proceed on Counts 1, 6 and 7

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 terrorism charges (Counts 1, 6, and 7) against five accused persons for vandalising electricity infrastructure and terrorism financing, but declined to confirm four counts (Counts 2, 3, 4, and 5) for insufficient evidence. The court held that the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence through call data records, witness statements, and accused persons' own admissions to establish substantial grounds that the accused interfered with Uganda's electricity transmission system with the aim of influencing government and that funds were provided to carry out these acts.

Outcome

Pre-trial charges partially confirmed — trial to proceed on Counts 1, 6 and 7

Facts

Between November and December 2022, multiple incidents of electricity infrastructure vandalism occurred across Central Uganda. Accused persons A1 to A5 were charged with terrorism and terrorism financing. A1 (Muwonge Ibrah) allegedly recruited and paid A2, A3, A4 and A5 to cut down electricity transmission high voltage pylons and distribution poles in Mukono, Buikwe, Luwero, Nakaseke and Nakasongola Districts. The vandalism disrupted electricity supply to hospitals, schools, banks, water treatment facilities and other essential services. Investigations revealed that A1 was linked to the Uganda Defence Forces (UDF), a rebel group, and administered a WhatsApp group mobilising youths to join. Call data records placed the accused at or near multiple crime scenes at the times offences occurred. A1 admitted in his statement to procuring others to vandalise electric infrastructure to frustrate and overthrow the government. The prosecution sought confirmation of seven terrorism counts and one terrorism financing count.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution has disclosed sufficient evidence to raise substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the terrorism offences charged in Counts 1-7.
  2. Whether the charges against the accused should be confirmed for trial.

Orders

  • Counts 1, 6 and 7 confirmed against A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5.
  • The accused persons to be tried for the offences in Counts 1, 6 and 7.
  • Counts 2, 3, 4 and 5 not confirmed — insufficient evidence.

Rules and key headnotes

Terrorism — Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof
At pre-trial confirmation proceedings under the International Crimes Division Rules, the evidentiary standard requires the prosecution to offer concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning the specific allegations, sufficient to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed each of the crimes charged.
Terrorism — Interfering with Electronic System — Essential Elements
For a conviction under Section 7(1)(a) and (b) and Section 7(2)(p) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the prosecution must prove (i) interfering with an electronic system resulting in disruption of essential services; (ii) by the accused; (iii) for the purpose of influencing government or intimidating the public; (iv) for a political, religious, social or economic aim; and (v) the act was done without due regard to the safety of others or property.
Call Data Records — Placing Accused at Scene of Crime
Call data records showing the accused's mobile telephone location at or near the scene of a crime at approximately the time of its commission constitute admissible evidence capable of placing the accused at the scene, particularly when corroborated by witness statements and the accused's own admissions.
Terrorism — Procuring Another to Commit Terrorist Act — Liability
Under Section 19(2) of the Penal Code Act, a person who procures another person to commit an act of terrorism is guilty of an offence of the same kind and liable to the same punishment as if he had committed the act himself, and may be charged accordingly even if he was not physically present at the scene of the crime.
Terrorism Financing — Elements of the Offence
Under Section 9A(1)(c) of the Anti-Terrorism Act 2002, the offence of terrorism financing requires proof that (i) the accused willingly collected or provided funds by any means; (ii) with the intention or knowledge that such funds would be used in full or in part; (iii) by a person or terrorist organisation to carry out a terrorist act.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (1)

  • Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, ICC-01/14-01/21

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Muwonge & 4 Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT 1 of 2024) [2025] UGHCICD 1 (17 March 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.