A Prosecutorial Submission Concerning an AK-47 and a Fatal Shooting
Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif | Prosecutor
Somalia | Courtroom Proceedings
Overview
During criminal proceedings concerning a fatal shooting involving an AK-47 rifle, I delivered a prosecutorial submission addressing the defence's assertion that the weapon had discharged accidentally.
The fact that a shot had been fired and caused the death of the deceased was not the central point of disagreement in this part of the proceedings. The principal issue was the explanation advanced by the accused and his lawyer: that the fatal shot had been discharged accidentally.
The prosecution's position was different. I argued before the Court that the accused had intentionally killed the deceased and that the subsequent claim of accidental discharge was an attempt to characterise the incident in a way that could reduce his criminal responsibility and potentially result in a more lenient outcome.
An important part of my submission concerned the accused's background as a trained soldier. This was not, in my argument, a person unfamiliar with firearms or someone handling such a weapon for the first time. As a member of the military, he had received training in the safe handling and operation of his firearm and understood the precautions, safety mechanisms and deliberate actions associated with preparing and operating it.
I therefore asked the Court to consider whether the explanation that the weapon had simply “gone off” was consistent with the accused's training, familiarity with the firearm and the circumstances surrounding the shooting.
I explained that an AK-47 normally requires a sequence of deliberate human actions involving its ammunition, magazine, preparation, safety mechanism, direction and firing mechanism before a shot is discharged. My argument was that when the entire sequence was considered together, rather than looking only at the final moment of discharge, the assertion that the fatal shot had simply escaped accidentally was not credible in the circumstances presented by the prosecution.
In other words, my submission asked the Court to examine the events preceding the shot. If a trained individual had consciously progressed through the necessary stages of preparing and handling the firearm before the fatal discharge, I argued that it was difficult to reconcile that sequence with a simple explanation that the weapon had discharged accidentally.
The purpose of this explanation was not to provide firearms instruction. It was to make the technical and evidential issue understandable to the Court and to demonstrate why the operating process of the firearm was relevant when assessing the credibility of the defence presented.
During the submission, I also referred to Mikhail Kalashnikov, the designer associated with the AK-47, and noted that he died in 2013. I used a rhetorical illustration before the Court: if Kalashnikov himself could be brought back and told that the weapon he had designed had simply “fired by itself,” I argued that he would not accept such an explanation without examining what had actually occurred, because the weapon incorporates mechanisms and a sequence of human actions before a normal discharge.
The purpose of that illustration was to emphasise that the Court should not accept the phrase “the weapon went off accidentally” without examining the physical circumstances behind it.
I made a second rhetorical comparison involving nuclear weapons. My point was not to compare the technical operation of an AK-47 with that of a nuclear weapon. Rather, I used the comparison to illustrate a broader principle: weapons capable of causing death are designed with mechanisms and safeguards intended to require human control, and an assertion that a weapon simply activated itself must therefore be examined against the mechanisms, safeguards and evidence involved.
These comparisons formed part of my courtroom advocacy. They were intended to communicate a technical argument in clear and memorable terms so that the Court could focus on the central evidential question: was the accused's explanation consistent with what had actually occurred?
I also emphasised that the accused's military training was relevant. A trained soldier is expected to understand that a firearm demands discipline, care and responsibility. When a person has been professionally trained to handle such a weapon, his knowledge and experience may be relevant when the Court assesses an explanation concerning how a fatal discharge occurred.
My submission therefore invited the Court to consider the accused's training, his familiarity with the AK-47, the condition and handling of the weapon, the circumstances preceding the discharge, and all other available evidence rather than treating the words “it was accidental” as sufficient on their own.
At the same time, the courtroom argument was not intended to establish that an unintended firearm discharge is technically impossible under every conceivable circumstance. Whether a particular weapon had a mechanical defect or was capable of an unintended discharge in particular circumstances may require examination by a qualified firearms or forensic specialist.
My argument concerned this particular accused, this particular firearm, the circumstances of this fatal shooting and the evidence presented in this particular case.
The prosecution's position was that the accused had deliberately killed the deceased and that the claim of accidental discharge was inconsistent with the circumstances presented before the Court. The defence was entitled to advance its explanation, but I argued that the explanation had to be tested against the physical and technical evidence rather than accepted merely because the accused described the shooting as an accident.
The case therefore demonstrated the importance of connecting technical knowledge with legal evidence. Courts dealing with firearm-related offences may need to understand not only that a weapon discharged, but also the circumstances in which it was handled, the actions preceding the discharge, the training and knowledge of the person handling it, and any forensic evidence capable of supporting or contradicting the explanations presented by the parties.
The central argument I placed before the Court was therefore:
A trained soldier cannot rely solely on the statement that a firearm “went off accidentally.” That explanation must be examined against his training, his actions, the condition and operation of the weapon, and the complete evidential circumstances surrounding the fatal discharge.
Ultimately, whether the shooting was intentional or accidental remained a matter for the Court to determine after considering the prosecution case, the defence case and all relevant evidence.
Courtroom Video
Published Title: Aqoon ku saabsan Qoriga Darandooriga u dhaca iyo Doodayda Maxkamadda
English Title: Understanding an Automatic Rifle and My Courtroom Argument
Original Language: Somali
Speaker: Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif
Role: Prosecutor
Subject: Fatal Shooting and Alleged Accidental Discharge
Firearm Discussed: AK-47
Video Length: Approximately 3 minutes and 6 seconds
Published on YouTube: 1 November 2025
The video below contains part of my courtroom submission concerning the operation of the AK-47, the accused's training and the assertion that the fatal shot had been discharged accidentally.