Wakilii

Uganda v TwaHa Kasaija and Others [2026] UGHCICD 9

High Court · 2026 Charges Confirmed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Pre-trial confirmation of charges hearing under Article 61(5) of the Rome Statute, as domesticated by the International Crimes Act
Decision
Charges confirmed against all accused; accused persons committed for trial before a trial Judge or Panel

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

On a confirmation of charges hearing under Article 61(5) of the Rome Statute, the court held that the prosecution's disclosed documentary and summary evidence established substantial grounds to believe each accused committed the offences charged. The double jeopardy objection failed because that principle applies only where an accused has already been fully tried and convicted or acquitted, which had not occurred. The court found sufficient evidence that the Allied Democratic Forces is a listed terrorist organisation and that the accused belonged to and rendered support to it, and that they trafficked children (and, under section 3(f), an adult relative) for use in armed conflict. All charges were confirmed and the accused committed for trial.

Outcome

Charges confirmed against all accused; accused persons committed for trial before a trial Judge or Panel

Facts

Following reports in 2023 of persons disappearing from Konge, Makindye Division, police traced call data records leading to A1, Twaha Kasaija, who admitted transporting Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) recruits, rice and tunics to the Mpondwe border for onward movement to camps in the Democratic Republic of Congo, using funds and instructions from an ADF contact. Investigations implicated A3, Muhammed Nabanji, who admitted handing three of his children to A2, Kisambu Ismail, an Imam, who in turn admitted receiving those children and surrendering his own children, all transported to ADF camps in the DRC. A4, Mutebi Twaha, was found to have facilitated his son's recruitment through Lusiba Ashraf, giving him money to travel to the DRC. Recovered victim Nakiranda Mwamini stated she and other children were trained in drills and firearms at ADF camps. The children were below 18 (save the Count 9 victim, said to be 18). Mobile phones were forensically examined. Charge and caution statements from all accused were relied upon by the prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether charging Counts 3 to 9 alongside Counts 1 and 2 offends the rule against double jeopardy.
  2. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused belonged to and rendered support to a terrorist organisation contrary to the Anti-Terrorism Act.
  3. Whether the prosecution disclosed sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that the accused committed aggravated trafficking in children and in persons contrary to the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection on double jeopardy raised by counsel for the accused persons fails.
  • The charges are confirmed: Counts 1 and 2 against all accused persons.
  • Counts 3, 4 and 5 confirmed against A2, Kisambu Ismail.
  • Counts 6, 7 and 8 confirmed against A2 and A3.
  • Count 9 confirmed against A4, Mutebi Twaha.
  • The accused persons are forwarded for trial before a trial Judge or trial Panel as will be determined.

Rules and key headnotes

Criminal Law & Procedure — Confirmation of Charges — Standard of 'Substantial Grounds to Believe'
At a confirmation of charges hearing the prosecutor must support each charge with sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe the accused committed the crime charged, and may rely on documentary or summary evidence without calling the witnesses expected to testify at trial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Double Jeopardy — Scope of the Protection
The rule against double jeopardy under Article 28(9) of the Constitution and section 18 of the Penal Code Act applies only where an accused has had a full trial and been convicted or acquitted of the offence, and does not bar the framing of distinct counts arising from the same transaction at first instance.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Aggravated Trafficking in Children — Irrelevance of Means and Consent
Where the victim of trafficking is a child, proof of the means used is not required and the consent of the child or of the child's parents or guardian to acts of exploitation is irrelevant under sections 2(4) and 2(5) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Aggravated Trafficking in Persons — Offence by Close Relative or Person with Parental Care
Aggravated trafficking under section 3(f) of the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act is made out where the offence is committed by a close relative or a person having parental care, authority or control over the victim, and applies even where the victim is not a child.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Terrorism — Belonging to a Proscribed Organisation
An organisation specified in the Second Schedule to the Anti-Terrorism Act is a proscribed terrorist organisation, and a person who belongs or professes to belong to, or renders support to, such an organisation commits an offence under section 12 of the Act; the Allied Democratic Forces is so listed.

Legislation cited (17)

Cases cited (5)

  • Soering v United Kingdom (Application No. 14038/88)
  • The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, 14-05-2007)
  • Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey (Applications Nos 46827/99 and 46951/99, 4 February 2005)
  • The State v Bertus Koch (CC 20/2017) NAHCMD 290
  • Uganda v Mpagi Didas (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0004-2020)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v TwaHa Kasaija and Others [2026] UGHCICD 9 (30 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.