Uganda v wakwaya (HCT-00-ICD-CR-SC 1 of 2022)
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 declined to confirm charges against the accused who had been granted amnesty under the Amnesty Act 2000. Held that Article 29(10) of the Constitution prohibits trial of a person who has been pardoned for the offence charged. The offences of aggravated trafficking in children and belonging to a terrorist organisation were committed in furtherance of armed rebellion and fell within the scope of the amnesty. Prosecution after pardon is unconstitutional and illegal.
Outcome
Accused discharged — indictment struck out on constitutional grounds
Facts
In December 2012, the complainant sent her two sons, aged 13 and 9, to their paternal grandmother in Butalejja District. In early 2013, the accused, a family friend, collected the children under false pretences and took them to an Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) camp in the Democratic Republic of Congo for military training. The children disappeared and have not been found. The accused was wounded and captured by DRC forces, detained, later freed by militia, and returned to Uganda in August 2017. He reported to Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence and was processed by the Amnesty Commission, which issued him a certificate of amnesty in respect of his participation in ADF activities. He was resettled in his village. In December 2017, he was arrested and charged in January 2018 with aggravated trafficking in children and belonging to a terrorist organisation.
Issues
- Whether charges can be confirmed against an accused who has been granted amnesty under the Amnesty Act 2000 for the same offences.
- Whether prosecution of an accused who has been pardoned violates the constitutional right under Article 29(10) of the Constitution.
- Whether the offences charged fall within the scope of crimes covered by the amnesty granted to the accused.
Orders
- Charges not confirmed.
- Indictment struck out.
- Accused person set free.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (14)
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 61(5)
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Criminal Court Article 61(7)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.3(1)(a)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.5(a)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.5(b)
- Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act 2009 s.5(d)
- Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 s.11(1)(a)
- Anti-Terrorism Act 2002 s.11(3)
- Amnesty Act 2000 s.3(1)
- Amnesty Act 2000 s.3(2)
- Amnesty Act 2000 s.4
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 29(10)
- Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995 Article 44
- Human Rights Enforcement Act 2011 s.11
Cases cited (9)
- Uganda v Rwigambwa (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0006-2021)
- Uganda v Karamagi (HCT-00-ICD-SC-0007-2021)
- Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo (ICC-01/04-01/07)
- Mamatklov and Askariv v. Turkey of 4th February 2005 (Applications Nos.46827/99 & 46951/99)
- Soering v. United Kingdom, Application No.14038/88
- Prosecutor v Lubanga Dyilo (ICC-01/04-01/06)
- Prosecutor v Ntaganda (ICC-01/04-02/06)
- Makula International Ltd v Cardinal Nsubuga (1982) HCB 11
- Uganda v Kwoyelo (Constitutional Appeal No. 1 of 2012)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.