High Court Convicts Accused of Kidnap for Ransom and Aggravated Trafficking, affirming that an accused need not participate in all stages of trafficking to be guilty; involvement in any part makes...

Waboga David
Sep 18
3 min read

Facts

On November 8, 2023, in Karengyere Village, Rubanda District, the accused, Atukunda Dinah (A2), and her co-accused, Byamukama Raurensio (A1), allegedly orchestrated the kidnapping of a 4-year-old male juvenile, AD, for ransom and trafficking purposes.

A1, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 28 years, enticed AD with promises of mandazi and shoes, diverting him from his journey to Muko Junior School. A1 confined AD in Kashasha Town Council for four days, demanding a ransom of USD 5,000 (approximately UGX 18,000,000) from AD’s mother (PW2).

A1 was arrested after police traced his phone, and AD was rescued. A1 implicated A2, alleging she masterminded the scheme, recruited him, housed him at her lodge (Mbabazi), and identified the victim. A2 pleaded not guilty, denying involvement and claiming a business dispute with PW3 (the victim’s uncle).

Issues

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 participated in the kidnap with intent to procure ransom.
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A2 committed aggravated trafficking in children.
Whether the corroboration of A1’s confession and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict A2 despite her denial and the assessor’s contrary opinion.

Court’s Findings

The court disagreed with the assessors under Section 83(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act, providing reasons per Rex v. Mwita (1948 EACA 40).

Kidnapping with Intent to Procure a Ransom

Unlawful Taking PW1’s testimony confirmed A1 enticed and took him unlawfully. A2’s role was established through her recruitment of A1 and identification of the victim (PW4, PW5).

Fraud/Deception A1 used deception (promises of shoes/mandazi) to lure AD, orchestrated by A2’s planning.

Intent for Ransom A1 demanded USD 5,000, corroborated by PW2 and PW3. A2’s motive was financial gain through exploiting the victim’s father’s wealth.

A2’s Participation A1’s statement (PEX 3), corroborated by PW3 and PW4’s testimony (seeing A1 and A2 together), and A2’s admissions (housing A1, knowing the victim’s family) established her role.

The court applied Kintu v. Uganda, noting A1’s statement was not motivated by personal gain and was supported by independent evidence.

Aggravated Trafficking in Children

Act of Transporting/Harboring A1 transported AD to Kashasha, facilitated by A2’s recruitment and housing at her lodge (PW4, PW5).

Deception/Vulnerability AD, a 4-year-old, was highly vulnerable and deceived by A1, per PW1’s testimony. A2’s involvement was not negated by A1’s direct actions (Muhwezi v. Uganda, 2022).

Exploitation The ransom demand aimed to exploit the victim’s father, orchestrated by A2.

Child as Aggravating Factor AD’s age (4) was uncontested.

A2’s Participation A2’s role in recruiting A1, identifying AD, and providing lodging was corroborated by PW4 and A1’s statement.

Analysis

The court observed that A2’s testimony was evasive, contradictory, and untrustworthy (e.g., denying lodge ownership, then admitting housing A1). Her demeanor suggested deceit.

A1’s statement was admissible under Kintu and Anyangu v. R (1968 EA 239), as he pleaded guilty without seeking to exonerate himself. Corroboration from PW3, PW4, and PW5 satisfied the “assurance test.”

The absence of call data (PEX 6) was not fatal, as phone logs have low probative value without conversation content (Uganda v. Major Babumba, 2012). The court noted the calculated avoidance of direct phone communication.

Circumstantial evidence (PW3, PW4, A1’s actions leading police to A2’s lodge) overwhelmingly linked A2 to the crime.

A2’s partial admissions (Section 16, Evidence Act) further supported her guilt.

Rejection of Assessors’ Opinion

The lack of call data was irrelevant given the strong circumstantial evidence.

The business grudge with PW3 did not negate A2’s involvement, as corroborated by other witnesses.

A2’s illness claim lacked substantiation, and her presence with A1 was confirmed by PW4

Holding

A2, Atukunda Dinah, was found guilty on both counts:

Kidnap with intent to procure ransom (s.226(1)(c) Penal Code Act).
Aggravated trafficking in children (ss.2(1)(a), 3(1)(a), 4(a) Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act)

Key Takeaways

An accused need not participate in all stages of trafficking to be guilty; involvement in any part of the chain (e.g., planning, recruitment) suffices (Muhwezi v. Uganda, 2022; Bernard Onyandi v. Republic, [2018] eKLR).
Under Section 83(2) of the Trial on Indictments Act, a judge may disagree with assessors but must provide reasons (Rex v. Mwita, 1948 EACA 40).
Phone call data has limited probative value without conversation content (Uganda v. Major Babumba, 2012). Courts prioritize direct and circumstantial evidence, including witness testimony and admissions.

Read the full case