Automated Summary
Key Facts
The accused, members of the National Unity Platform (NUP) group 'Go Slow Bobi Ahead,' were arrested in May 2023 for planning to manufacture and use petrol bombs during a demonstration aimed at overthrowing President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni. Police recovered materials like fireworks, gasoline, and explosive components from their residences. Forensic analysis confirmed these items could be used to create improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The accused admitted to participating in the plan, including training by an expert and coordinating through a WhatsApp group named 'Go Slow Bobi Ahead.' Charges under the Anti-Terrorism Act, Cap. 120, were confirmed by the court for unlawful possession of explosives with political intent.
Issues
Whether there is sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that each of the Accused persons committed each of the crimes they are charged with.
Holdings
- The Court concluded the evidence demonstrated the Accused's intent to influence the government or intimidate the public, as part of a political aim to end President Museveni's rule. The planning of demonstrations and procurement of materials for petrol bombs supported this determination.
- The Court concluded there was sufficient evidence to confirm all charges of terrorism against each Accused under Section 6(1)(b) and 3(i) of the Anti-Terrorism Act. The charges were forwarded for trial, with a directive to amend the indictment to reflect the correct legal provisions.
- The Court confirmed the participation of the Accused in the unlawful possession, noting arrests at the scene, statements implicating others (e.g., A10 and A11 as trainers), and digital evidence linking them to the 'Go Slow Bobi Ahead' group. For A6, A8, and A9, the Court relied on statements and recovered items from their homes.
- The Court determined that the Prosecution's evidence, including recovered materials and forensic analysis, established substantial grounds to believe the Accused persons were in unlawful possession of explosives and materials for making IEDs/petrol bombs. The evidence showed the items were not for ordinary use, given the forensic findings and the context of planned demonstrations.
Legal Principles
- Uganda's adherence to the Rome Statute obligations was emphasized, citing the principle that agreements must be kept. This underpins the court's reliance on international law standards for pre-trial procedures in the International Crimes Division.
- The prosecution argued the offense under the Anti-Terrorism Act constitutes a strict liability crime, where the accused's intent or use of materials is irrelevant. The court acknowledged this, focusing on possession of materials rather than actual harm caused.
- The court applied the Rome Statute's requirement for 'substantial grounds to believe' the accused committed the offense, as outlined in Article 61 (5)-(7). This standard necessitates sufficient evidence to establish a clear line of reasoning linking the accused to the allegations, without requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt at the pre-trial stage.
Precedent Name
- Uganda versus Miria Rwigambwa
- The Prosecutor versus Germain Katonga and Mathien Ngudjolo Chui
- The Prosecutor versus Akayesu
- Prosecutor versus Bosco Ntaganda
- Uganda versus Nsungwa Rose Karamagi
- Tuwamoi Versus Uganda
Cited Statute
- Anti-Terrorism Act, Cap. 120
- Judicature (High Court) (International Crimes Division) Rules, 2016
- International Criminal Court Act, No. 11 of 2010
- High Court (International Crimes Division) Practice Directions, 2011
- Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Judge Name
Alice Komuhangi Khaukha
Passage Text
- In light of the above, therefore, it is the finding of the Court that this ingredient has also been proved to the required standard. The evidence disclosed reveals that Police got intelligence information on 7/05/2023 that there were some people manufacturing bombs in Nabweru North I... They would throw the explosives on the Police vehicles and in the roads so as to create fear among the public.
- Whereas I agree with him, I hasten to observe that all the other disclosed evidence reveals the contrary. If it was one isolated item, that could be explainable, but having an assortment of them and the Forensic Analyst concluding that when used together, they can form an explosive, I am inclined to believe that these items were not being kept for ordinary use.
- Katumba Abdu (A1), Katumba Abdallah (A2), Ssekidde Hamidu (A3), Kalyango Muhamud (A4) and Muyodi Hamidu (A7) were all arrested from the house of A1 from where the items were recovered, which according to PEID 41, were materials capable of making explosives.