By Spy Uganda
“It is a shame to extradite our national to the U.S. when the U.S. can never extradite an American to Uganda. Doing so is a clear sign of modern master-slave neo-colonial relations.” — Rtd. Gen. David Ssejusa (Tinyefuza), former Coordinator of Intelligence Agencies
On 28 June 2026, Lt. Michael Katungi Mpeirwe—a former Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officer, former African Union policy adviser, and commissioner in the Patriotic League of Uganda—appeared before Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court and was remanded to Luzira Prison following his arrest pursuant to an extradition request from the United States.
His case has immediately sparked a debate that extends far beyond one individual. It raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, reciprocity, constitutional rights and Uganda’s place within the international legal order.
The issue before the country is not whether serious crimes should be prosecuted. They should.
The question is where and under whose authority that justice ought to be administered.
American prosecutors allege that Lt. Katungi participated in a conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking, military-grade weapons and support to Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), an organisation designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.
These allegations are undoubtedly grave.
But they remain allegations.
They have not been tested before any Ugandan court, and no Ugandan judicial body has yet determined whether the evidence supporting the extradition request satisfies the legal threshold required under Ugandan law.
That distinction matters.
Every Ugandan citizen enjoys constitutional protections until proven guilty through lawful process. Extradition should therefore never become a mere administrative exercise; it is among the most consequential decisions a sovereign state can make regarding one of its citizens.
Uganda and the United States do not have a bilateral extradition treaty.
Instead, the request reportedly relies upon Uganda’s Extradition Act together with the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988.
Whether those instruments provide sufficient legal basis for extradition is ultimately a question for the Ugandan courts.
However, the absence of a bilateral treaty inevitably raises legitimate policy questions.
International conventions encourage cooperation among states, but cooperation does not necessarily eliminate national discretion. Extradition remains a sovereign decision that requires careful balancing of international obligations, constitutional protections and the national interest.
Among the strongest public objections has come from retired Gen. David Ssejusa.
His central question is straightforward:
Would the United States extradite one of its own citizens to Uganda under comparable circumstances?
Whether one agrees entirely with his conclusion or not, the principle of reciprocity deserves serious discussion.
Healthy international cooperation is strongest when obligations run both ways. Where legal arrangements appear to operate predominantly in favour of more powerful states, concerns about equality within the international legal system naturally arise.
Ugandans are entitled to ask whether the same level of protection afforded by powerful nations to their own citizens should also be available to Ugandan citizens.
The timing of this case is striking.
Only weeks before these proceedings commenced, Uganda enacted the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026, legislation intended to reinforce the country’s independence in matters of governance, national security and foreign policy.
Whatever one’s views of that legislation, its enactment inevitably invites an important question.
If Parliament has declared sovereignty to be a central national value, how should that principle influence decisions involving the extradition of Ugandan citizens to foreign jurisdictions?
This is not merely a legal question.
It is a constitutional and political one.
An alternative exists.
International law recognises circumstances in which states may prosecute their own nationals for offences allegedly committed abroad, provided domestic law permits such jurisdiction.
Retired Gen. Ssejusa has suggested that Uganda should pursue precisely that course.
If American authorities possess credible evidence, that evidence could be transmitted through established mutual legal cooperation mechanisms.
Ugandan investigators could examine it.
Ugandan prosecutors could assess it.
If sufficient evidence exists, Ugandan courts could hear the case under Ugandan law.
Such an approach would not shield anyone from accountability.
Rather, it would affirm Uganda’s confidence in its own judicial institutions while ensuring that justice is administered within the constitutional framework of the Republic.
Defence counsel have argued before court that important procedural safeguards—including timely disclosure of documents supporting the extradition request—must be fully observed before any decision is taken.
Those objections deserve careful judicial consideration.
Extradition proceedings are not intended simply to validate requests from foreign governments.
They exist precisely so that Ugandan courts can independently examine whether statutory requirements have been satisfied and whether the rights of the individual concerned have been respected.
Among the questions deserving close judicial scrutiny are:
- whether the legal instruments relied upon provide a sufficient basis for extradition;
- whether the evidence presented satisfies the applicable statutory threshold;
- whether the accused has received adequate disclosure to prepare his defence; and
- whether the proceedings comply fully with the Constitution of Uganda.
These questions should be answered by law—not by politics, public pressure or diplomatic convenience.
Uganda has long cooperated with international partners in combating terrorism, narcotics trafficking and organised crime.
That cooperation is both necessary and valuable.
Yet cooperation should not require the abandonment of sovereign judgment.
A confident nation can support international law while insisting that its constitutional safeguards are fully respected.
Indeed, that is the essence of sovereignty.
The true measure of a state’s independence is not how readily it complies with powerful allies, but how faithfully it applies its own Constitution and laws to every case before it.
This debate is not about defending criminal conduct.
If Lt. Michael Katungi committed the offences alleged against him, he should answer for them.
But accountability should proceed through a process that is lawful, transparent and respectful of Uganda’s constitutional order.
If the United States possesses compelling evidence, Uganda should receive that evidence, evaluate it independently and determine, through its own courts, whether extradition is legally justified or whether domestic prosecution better serves both justice and national sovereignty.
The Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court now carries an important responsibility.
Its decision will not concern one man alone.
It will help define how Uganda understands sovereignty, due process and the protection owed to its own citizens in an increasingly interconnected world.
Whatever conclusion the courts ultimately reach, it should be one grounded firmly in law, constitutional principle and judicial independence—not in the relative power of the states involved.
That is how justice earns legitimacy. That is how sovereignty acquires meaning.
