Wakilii

Uganda v Nakazzi (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 21 of 2022)

High Court · [2023] UGHCICD 16 · 2023 Charge Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial hearing for confirmation of charges in a criminal matter committed to the High Court International Crimes Division
Decision
Charge confirmed; accused committed to trial

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 the charge of aggravated trafficking in children against the accused. The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused recruited, harboured, and received a 17-year-old victim under the guise of domestic employment but subjected her to harmful child labour, servitude, and sexual exploitation at a massage parlour. The court applied the Rome Statute standard of proof for pre-trial confirmation hearings and found all elements of the offence satisfied, including that the victim was a child, was recruited by deception due to vulnerability, and was exploited for sexual purposes with the accused's participation.

Outcome

Charge confirmed; accused committed to trial

Facts

In February 2020, Ndagire Marion, aged 17, was recruited from Kyotera to work as a domestic worker at the home of Nakazzi Miriat in Kibuye, Kampala. The accused operated multiple businesses including a shop, restaurant, and massage parlour. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the accused closed the shop and restaurant but kept the massage parlour open and moved the victim to work there. At the massage parlour, the victim was instructed to lock rooms when working on clients and to perform full body massages on male clients including their private parts. During one massage session, a male client forcefully had sex with the victim. On 11 April 2020, after a dispute with the accused's son, the victim was chased away and reported the sexual assault to police. Medical examination revealed a completely ruptured hymen. The accused was arrested and charged with aggravated trafficking in children.

Issues

  1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish 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.

Orders

  • The charge of aggravated trafficking in children contrary to sections 3(1)(a) and 5(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2009 is confirmed.
  • The accused is forwarded for trial before the trial panel.

Rules and key headnotes

Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof — Rome Statute Application
In pre-trial confirmation hearings before the International Crimes Division, the prosecution must present sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the crime charged, meaning strong grounds for believing, which requires evidence that is concrete and tangible in demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning the accused to the specific allegations.
Trafficking in Persons — Child Victims — Irrelevance of Means and Consent
Where the victim of trafficking is a child under 18 years, it is not necessary to prove the ingredient of means (deception, threat, force, etc.) used to recruit, transport, transfer, harbour or receive the child, and the consent of the child or their parents or guardian to acts of exploitation is irrelevant under section 3(3) and (4) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2009.
Trafficking in Persons — Exploitation — Definition and Scope
Exploitation under section 2(d) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, 2009 includes at a minimum sexual exploitation, forced labour, harmful child labour, servitude, and practices similar to slavery, and a victim may be subjected to multiple forms of exploitation simultaneously.
Trafficking in Persons — Deception — Change in Nature of Employment
Recruitment by means of deception is established where a victim is recruited for one type of work (domestic service) but is subsequently required to perform different work (massage parlour services) that exposes the victim to exploitation, and the victim's continued performance of such work without complaint demonstrates vulnerability rather than consent.
Child Protection — Harmful Employment — Constitutional Safeguards
Although Article 34(4) of the Constitution permits employment of children aged 16 and above, children remain entitled to protection from employment that is hazardous or harmful to their health, physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development, and this protection extends to all children under 18 years notwithstanding that Article 34(4) specifically references children under 16.
Pre-trial Proceedings — Scope of Inquiry — Evaluation of Evidence
At the pre-trial confirmation stage, the court's duty is to determine whether on the face of the disclosures presented there are sufficient grounds to believe the accused committed the charges, not to delve into the meritocracy or integrity of the evidence; challenges to consistency and credibility of evidence are matters for the trial stage.
Trafficking in Persons — Sexual Exploitation — Employer Knowledge and Facilitation
An employer who places a child employee in a massage parlour with instructions to lock rooms and massage male clients including their private parts, knowing the nature of such business and the likelihood that clients would demand sexual services, acts for purposes of sexual exploitation even if the employer does not directly compel the sexual acts.

Legislation cited (19)

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 of 2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007 of 2021)
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99) (4 February 2005)
  • Soering v United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88) (ECHR)
  • Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04/06-803-TEN) (14 May 2007)
  • 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 Nakazzi (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 21 of 2022) [2023] UGHCICD 16 (20 March 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.