Wakilii

Uganda v Swalleh Abubaker alias Mupeeta Isaac alias Dog City alias Fufo Boxer alias Kivuruge Tom and Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT-001-2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCICD 6 · 2026 Charges Confirmed (Partially) AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing under the International Crimes Division Rules
Decision
Charges confirmed in full against A.1; charges partially confirmed against A.2; charges declined against A.3, A.4, and A.5 with direction to prosecution to add new counts based on evidence adduced

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 all counts (financing terrorism, contributing resources to a terrorist organisation, and membership of a terrorist organisation) against accused A.1. For accused A.2, the court confirmed Alternative Count 1 (contributing resources) and Count 2 (membership) but declined to confirm Count 1 (financing). The court declined to confirm all charges against accused A.3, A.4, and A.5 as originally framed, but directed the prosecution to add new counts of contributing to acts of terrorism, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, and unlawful importation of firearms. The court applied the Rome Statute's 'substantial grounds to believe' standard, a lower threshold than the prima facie standard required at trial.

Outcome

Charges confirmed in full against A.1; charges partially confirmed against A.2; charges declined against A.3, A.4, and A.5 with direction to prosecution to add new counts based on evidence adduced

Facts

Five accused persons were charged with terrorism-related offences under the Anti-Terrorism Act, alleged to have occurred between 2018 and April 2024 across multiple jurisdictions. The prosecution alleged that A.1 operated a Binance cryptocurrency account registered in the name of Mohammed Amran Alawi, through which funds were mobilised, received, and transmitted to support the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), a proscribed terrorist organisation. A.1 allegedly sent funds to ADF operatives and purchased arms, ammunition, and supplies. A.2 was alleged to have received funds from A.1 for radicalisation and recruitment; a firearm, ammunition, pangas, and nails were recovered from his residence. A.3 to A.5 were alleged to operate as a network receiving funds to purchase firearms and ammunition from South Sudan for shipment into Uganda, using sophisticated concealment techniques. The prosecution relied on cryptocurrency analyses, forensic reports, mobile money records, charge and caution statements, and a police link chart connecting the accused to ADF operatives.

Issues

  1. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each accused person committed the offence of financing terrorism as charged in Count 1.
  2. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each accused person contributed resources to the ADF as charged in Alternative Count 1.
  3. Whether the prosecution adduced sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each accused person belonged to the ADF as charged in Count 2.
  4. What is the applicable standard of proof at a pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing in the International Crimes Division.

Orders

  • All counts confirmed regarding A.1 (Swalleh Abubaker).
  • Alternative Count 1 and Count 2 confirmed regarding A.2 (Sulaiman Nsubuga); Count 1 declined.
  • All charges declined to confirm against A.3 (Giry Girmaley Batange), A.4 (Kalanzi Augustine), and A.5 (Mubiru Anthony) as originally framed.
  • Prosecution directed to add to the indictment new counts against A.3, A.4, and A.5 for: (i) contributing to acts of terrorism contrary to Sections 13(1)(b) and 17(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act; (ii) possession of firearms and ammunition contrary to Section 4(2)(b) of the Firearms Act Cap 320; and (iii) unlawful importation of firearms and ammunition contrary to Sections 27(1) and (3) of the Firearms Act Cap 320.

Rules and key headnotes

Pre-trial Confirmation of Charges — Standard of Proof in International Crimes Division
At a pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing in the International Crimes Division, the applicable standard of proof is the 'substantial grounds to believe' standard set out in Article 61(7) of the Rome Statute, which is lower than the prima facie standard applied at trial. This standard is met once the prosecution provides concrete evidence and clear reasoning for the allegations. Uganda, as a party to the Rome Statute which has been incorporated into domestic law, may apply this standard with necessary adjustments to fill procedural gaps in the ICD Rules and Practice Directions.
Confirmation of Charges — Alternative Counts Based on Same Facts
Where the prosecution presents a main count and an alternative count based on the same facts, both may be confirmed at pre-trial if the evidence shows substantial grounds that the accused committed the offences. The trial judge can then, at trial and based on the standard of proof required at trial, determine which legal characterisation is established. This approach reduces delays and gives the defence early notice of possible legal characterisations.
Terrorism Offences — Elements of Financing Terrorism
The offence of financing terrorism under Sections 9(1)(a) and 4 of the Anti-Terrorism Act requires proof of: (a) the existence of a terrorist organisation or suspected terrorist; (b) the accused collected or provided funds, either directly or indirectly, by any means; (c) the collection or provision of funds was done willingly; and (d) the accused intended that the funds would be used, or knew that the funds were being used, in whole or in part, by a suspected terrorist or terrorist organisation.
Cryptocurrency Evidence — Attribution of Binance Account to Accused
A Binance cryptocurrency account registered in another person's name may be attributed to an accused person through analysis of IP address access logs, transaction patterns, and corroborating evidence. Where access logs consistently place the user in a jurisdiction matching the accused's known location and transaction records show transfers to persons identified as co-conspirators, this evidence is sufficient at the pre-trial threshold to establish that the accused operated the account.
Terrorism Offences — Membership of Terrorist Organisation — Circumstantial Evidence
Membership of a terrorist organisation may be established through cumulative circumstantial evidence including: exposure to and participation in teachings encouraging participation in armed conflict on behalf of the organisation; allowing family members to join the organisation without objection or intervention; maintaining financial dealings with identified operatives of the organisation through the same channels used for organisational fund transfers; and conduct such as going into hiding upon learning of allegations linking the accused to the organisation. Such evidence, considered cumulatively, may raise substantial grounds to believe that the accused was not merely associated with persons connected to the organisation but belonged to it.
Terrorism Offences — Individual Criminal Responsibility
Criminal responsibility for terrorism offences is individual. The prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to establish that each accused person committed the charged offence. Evidence establishing one accused person's commission of an offence through use of a particular instrumentality (such as a cryptocurrency account) does not, without more, establish other accused persons' commission of the same offence through use of that same instrumentality.
Pre-trial Proceedings — Court's Power to Direct Addition of New Counts
At a pre-trial confirmation hearing, where the court declines to confirm the charges as framed but finds the evidence provides substantial grounds to believe the accused committed different offences disclosed by the same facts, the court may direct the prosecution to add new counts to the indictment pursuant to Rules 11(2) and (4) of the Judicature (High Court) (International Crimes Division) Rules, 2011.

Legislation cited (13)

Cases cited (7)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Swalleh Abubaker alias Mupeeta Isaac alias Dog City alias Fufo Boxer alias Kivuruge Tom and Others (HCT-00-ICD-PT-001-2025) [2026] UGHCICD 6 (31 July 2026)
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.