A Prosecutorial Submission Concerning a Defendant Apprehended in Connection with an IED
Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif | Prosecutor
Somalia | Courtroom Proceedings
Overview
During criminal proceedings involving a defendant who had reportedly been apprehended in connection with an Improvised Explosive Device (IED), I delivered a prosecutorial submission explaining to the Court what the term IED means, how an improvised device differs from conventionally manufactured weapons and munitions, and why that distinction can be important from an investigative and evidential perspective.
I explained that IED stands for “Improvised Explosive Device.” The central point of my explanation was the word improvised: unlike a conventionally manufactured weapon or munition produced through an established industrial process, an IED is generally assembled outside such a regulated manufacturing system.
This distinction was particularly relevant to the case before the Court because the defendant had reportedly been apprehended in connection with an alleged improvised explosive device.
In explaining the difference, I drew the Court's attention to the identification and documentation ordinarily associated with factory-manufactured weapons and munitions. Industrially manufactured items may carry identifying information such as a serial number, type, model, year or period of manufacture, manufacturer or country of origin, and technical specifications associated with the item.
I explained that these identifying characteristics are important not merely as manufacturing information but also because they can assist with identification, record-keeping, accountability and forensic investigation.
Where a conventionally manufactured item is recovered during an investigation or is connected with criminal activity, identifying marks and manufacturing records may potentially assist investigators in establishing what the item is and, depending on the available records, aspects of its origin or history.
The alleged IED discussed in the proceedings presented a different problem.
I explained to the Court that an improvised explosive device is not necessarily produced through the same standardised industrial process. It may therefore lack the conventional manufacturer markings, serialisation, model information and other identifying characteristics that investigators might expect to find on a commercially or militarily manufactured item.
That distinction can create an important traceability challenge.
My submission was not that an IED can never be investigated or attributed. Rather, my point was that investigators cannot necessarily rely on the same conventional manufacturing records and identifiers that may exist for factory-produced equipment. Establishing responsibility must instead depend on the evidence recovered in the particular case and the relationship that evidence establishes between the alleged device and the accused.
I therefore explained to the Court that the absence of conventional manufacturing identification does not itself establish who produced or possessed an improvised device. Those questions still require proper investigation and admissible evidence.
I also placed the terminology in a broader historical context.
During my courtroom presentation, I referred to historical examples of improvised explosive methods, including examples associated with the American Civil War, to demonstrate that the underlying idea of improvised explosive weapons predates modern conflicts.
I then referred to Afghanistan and Iraq, particularly the conflicts that began in 2001 and 2003, when the term Improvised Explosive Device and the abbreviation IED became internationally prominent in modern military, security and public discussion.
The purpose of this historical explanation was not to suggest that IEDs originated in those conflicts. Rather, I used the historical comparison to distinguish between the much older existence of improvised explosive methods and the widespread international recognition of the modern term IED during the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
The explanation was relevant because technical terminology used in terrorism and security-related proceedings can sometimes obscure the basic evidential question before a court. By explaining the meaning of the term, its distinction from standard industrial manufacture and the resulting traceability issues, I sought to make the technical subject understandable within the judicial proceedings.
At the same time, the Court still had to distinguish general technical explanation from case-specific proof.
Understanding what an IED is does not itself establish that a particular defendant manufactured, possessed or intended to use one. Those conclusions must arise from the evidence presented in the individual case.
The central purpose of my submission was therefore to help the Court understand three connected points: what the term IED means, why an improvised device differs from a conventionally manufactured item from an identification and traceability perspective, and why the prosecution still has to connect the particular device to the particular defendant through evidence.
For me as a prosecutor, the proceedings demonstrated another important aspect of presenting technical evidence in court. Complex security terminology must be translated into clear language so that the Court can understand the subject without losing sight of the fundamental legal question: what does the evidence establish about the accused and the particular item recovered in the case?
Courtroom Video
Published Title: IED lagu soo qabtay Eedeysanayaasha
English Title: Defendants Apprehended in Possession of an IED
Original Language: Somali
Speaker: Mohamed Abdullahi Khalif
Role: Prosecutor
Subject: Improvised Explosive Devices, Identification and Traceability
Video Length: Approximately 2 minutes and 59 seconds
Published on YouTube: 7 February 2026
The video contains part of my courtroom explanation concerning an alleged IED, the distinction between improvised and conventionally manufactured items, and the historical context in which the term Improvised Explosive Device became widely recognised.