Wakilii

Uganda v Sheikh Ssekabira Sharif and Another (HCT-00-ICD-PT-0003-2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCICD 18 · 2025 Charges Partly Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing under Article 61 of the Rome Statute and Rule 6 of The Judicature (High Court) (International Crimes Division) Rules, 2016
Decision
Charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Children dismissed; charges of Rendering Support to a Terrorist Organisation and Being a Member of a Terrorist Organisation confirmed and accused committed for 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 court dismissed charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Children (Counts 1 and 2) against both accused for failure to establish substantial grounds to believe they transported the minors for purposes of exploitation in armed conflict, as their participation occurred after the armed conflict. However, the court confirmed charges of Rendering Support to a Terrorist Organisation and Being a Member of a Terrorist Organisation, finding substantial grounds to believe the accused knowingly facilitated the transfer of ADF-trained minors from DR Congo to Uganda through coordinated actions that supported the terrorist organisation's activities.

Outcome

Charges of Aggravated Trafficking in Children dismissed; charges of Rendering Support to a Terrorist Organisation and Being a Member of a Terrorist Organisation confirmed and accused committed for trial

Facts

In May 2024, police received intelligence that A1 Sheikh Ssekabira Sharif was transporting ADF recruits. He was arrested in Kyengera with two children aged 14 and 8 years. A1 stated he had been contacted by Hashim Mujomba, whom he met in Mombasa in 2015, to receive the children and reunite them with their families in Kiryandongo. A2 Thembo Pascal was later arrested in Kasese and admitted transporting the children from the DR Congo-Uganda border to Kampala at the request of an unknown individual. Minor 1 disclosed he had been taken to DR Congo at age 7 by his father, underwent military training at ADF camps including Madina under Sheikh Baluku Musa, and escaped after his father died in battle. The minors were transported from DR Congo to the border, where A2 received them and took them by bus to Kampala, where A1 collected them from a petrol station in Kyengera.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed the offence of Aggravated Trafficking in Children contrary to Section 2(1)(a) and 4(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.
  2. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused rendered support to a terrorist organisation contrary to Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
  3. Whether the prosecution established substantial grounds to believe that the accused were members of a terrorist organisation contrary to Section 11(1)(a) and (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
  4. What is the applicable standard of proof at a pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing under the Rome Statute framework.

Orders

  • Charges in Count 1 (Aggravated Trafficking in Children in relation to Minor 1) dismissed against both accused persons.
  • Charges in Count 2 (Aggravated Trafficking in Children in relation to Minor 2) dismissed against both accused persons.
  • Alternative charge to Counts 1 and 2 (Rendering Support to a Terrorist Organization contrary to Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act) confirmed against both accused persons.
  • Count 3 (Being a Member of a Terrorist Organization contrary to Section 11(1)(a) and (3) of the Anti-Terrorism Act) confirmed against both accused persons.

Rules and key headnotes

Pre-Trial Proceedings — Standard of Proof — Confirmation of Charges
At a pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing under the Rome Statute framework, the applicable standard of proof is 'substantial grounds to believe' that the accused committed the crimes charged, which is lower than the prima facie standard used at trial and requires concrete and tangible proof demonstrating a clear line of reasoning underpinning the specific allegations.
Aggravated Trafficking in Children — Elements of the Offence — Cumulative Nature
The offence of Aggravated Trafficking in Children under Section 2(1)(a) and 4(a) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act requires proof of five cumulative elements: the victim is a child under 18 years; the act of transportation, transfer, harbouring or receiving; by means of deception or abuse of power or position of vulnerability; for purposes of exploitation including use in armed conflict or illegal activities; and participation of the accused.
Trafficking in Children — Consent and Means — Irrelevance Where Victim is a Minor
Where the victim of trafficking is a minor, it is irrelevant to prove the ingredient of 'means' (deception, abuse of power, etc.) as well as the consent of the child or the child's parents or guardians to the acts of exploitation, pursuant to Section 2(4) and (5) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.
Trafficking in Children — Purpose of Exploitation — Temporal Element
For a conviction of Aggravated Trafficking in Children based on use in armed conflict, the accused's participation must be connected to the exploitation for purposes of armed conflict; where the accused's involvement occurs only after the armed conflict has ended and the victims have escaped, the element of 'for purposes of exploitation in armed conflict' cannot be sustained.
Terrorism Offences — Membership of Terrorist Organisation — Proof by Circumstantial Evidence
Direct evidence of membership in or profession of belonging to a terrorist organisation may be difficult or impossible to obtain given the discreet nature of such organisations; membership and support may be inferred from circumstantial evidence including coordinated actions, communication with known members, and participation in activities that advance the organisation's objectives, where such evidence demonstrates a clear pattern of contributory roles aimed at achieving a common goal.
Terrorism Offences — Rendering Support — Knowledge Element
The offence of rendering support to a terrorist organisation under Section 8 of the Anti-Terrorism Act requires proof that the accused knew or had reason to believe that the support would be used for or in connection with the preparation, commission or instigation of acts of terrorism; such knowledge may be imputed from the circumstances including the nature of the support provided, the identity of recipients, and the coordinated manner of the activities.
Age of Child Victim — Proof in Absence of Birth Certificate
In circumstances where a child victim has been held in military camps and lacks formal documentation, the child's stated age in police interview statements and medical examination forms (Police Form 3) may constitute sufficient evidence to establish the child's age for purposes of trafficking charges.

Legislation cited (16)

Cases cited (7)

  • Umutoni Annet v Uganda (Court of Appeal Criminal Appeal No. 855 of 2014)
  • Mahamat Said Abdel Kani, ICC-01/14 - 01/21
  • Uganda v Kato Innocent Alias Mulondo (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0011-2022)
  • Uganda v Miria Rwigamba (HCT-00-ICD-0006-2021)
  • Uganda v Nsungwa Rose Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007-2021)
  • Uganda v Mpagi Didas (HCT-00-ICD-004-2020)
  • The State Vs Koch (CC 20/2017) [2018] NAHCMD290

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Sheikh Ssekabira Sharif and Another (HCT-00-ICD-PT-0003-2025) [2025] UGHCICD 18 (15 September 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.