![A Beacon of Judicial Courage: Saluting Magistrate Sheilah Gloria Atim’s Fidelity to the Constitution-[OPINION]](https://mulengeranews.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/3A-2-75x75.jpeg)
By Mulengera Reporters
Uganda’s planned extradition of former Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) officer Lt. Michael Katungi Mpeirwe to the United States has sparked an increasingly heated national debate, with retired military officers, legal commentators and Pan-African activists questioning whether the government should surrender one of its own citizens to face trial abroad.
The case, which has now become one of Uganda’s most closely watched legal and political developments, extends beyond the criminal allegations against Katungi and has evolved into a broader discussion about national sovereignty, constitutional rights, international law and Uganda’s relationship with major global powers.
Katungi, a former African Union policy adviser and commissioner in the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), was arrested over the weekend before appearing before Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court on June 28, where he was remanded to Luzira Prison pending extradition proceedings initiated at the request of the United States.
American prosecutors accuse him of participating in an international conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking, supplying military-grade weapons and providing material support to Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), an organisation designated by the United States as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation.
The allegations remain untested in court, and Katungi has not been convicted of any offence in Uganda or the United States.
Sovereignty Questions Overshadow Criminal Allegations
Although the accusations are serious, public debate has increasingly centred not on Katungi’s innocence or guilt, but on whether Uganda should surrender one of its nationals to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction.
Among the strongest critics is retired Gen. David Ssejusa (Tinyefuza), former Coordinator of Intelligence Agencies, who argued that Uganda risked undermining its own sovereignty by agreeing to extradite one of its citizens to the United States.
Ssejusa maintained that the United States would never extradite one of its own citizens to Uganda for prosecution and said Uganda’s willingness to do so reflected what he described as unequal relations between powerful and weaker nations. He characterised the proposed extradition as evidence of what he termed “modern master-slave neo-colonial relations.”
His remarks have resonated with several political observers who argue that extradition should operate on the basis of reciprocity rather than unequal legal obligations.
Ssejusa questioned whether the United States would ever surrender one of its own citizens for prosecution in Uganda, concluding that such reciprocity does not exist.
His comments have reignited discussion over long-standing concerns about unequal power relations between Western countries and African states.
No Bilateral Extradition Treaty
Legal analysts following the proceedings have pointed to another aspect of the case that has attracted attention.
Uganda and the United States do not have a bilateral extradition treaty specifically governing the surrender of suspects between the two countries.
Instead, government prosecutors are reportedly relying on Uganda’s Extradition Act together with provisions of the 1988 United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
While the convention encourages international cooperation in combating organised crime and narcotics trafficking, some legal commentators argue that it does not impose an automatic obligation to extradite nationals.
Rather, they contend, it allows states to exercise sovereign discretion after considering the legal merits of each request.
This distinction has become central to arguments advanced by critics of the extradition process.
Calls for Domestic Prosecution
Rather than rejecting the allegations outright, opponents of extradition have proposed that Uganda prosecutes Katungi domestically if sufficient evidence exists.
Ssejusa urged authorities to invoke what international legal scholars describe as the Active Personality Principle, which permits states to prosecute their own nationals for crimes allegedly committed outside their territory.
Supporters of that position argue that Uganda possesses legislation dealing with terrorism, organised crime, narcotics trafficking and illegal arms transactions.
They contend that if American investigators possess credible evidence, the material should be transmitted to Ugandan prosecutors for use before Ugandan courts instead of transferring the accused abroad.
Advocates say such an approach would simultaneously uphold accountability while preserving national sovereignty.
According to legal observers supporting that position, the central issue is not whether justice should be served but whether it should be administered within Uganda’s own constitutional and judicial framework.
Sovereignty Law Adds New Dimension
The controversy has gained further significance because it comes only weeks after Uganda enacted the Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026.
The legislation, assented to by President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni in May, was presented as a measure intended to safeguard Uganda’s political independence and protect national decision-making from undue foreign influence.
Government officials defended the law as necessary to ensure that Uganda’s governance and national interests remain free from external interference.
Critics of Katungi’s extradition now argue that surrendering a Ugandan citizen to another country appears inconsistent with the spirit of that legislation.
Some commentators have questioned how Uganda can simultaneously proclaim stronger protection of sovereignty while transferring one of its citizens to face prosecution under another country’s legal system.
Others argue that the law primarily addresses political interference rather than international criminal cooperation and therefore should not automatically prevent extradition.
The apparent tension between the two issues is likely to feature prominently during court proceedings.
Defence Lawyers Raise Procedural Concerns
Katungi’s legal team has also challenged aspects of the extradition process.
According to defence lawyers, they had not yet received all documentation supporting the extradition request when their client first appeared in court.
They further argued that a formal extradition application had not been fully presented before the remand order was issued.
Lawyers have called for full disclosure of all evidence and sufficient time to prepare their defence before any decision is taken regarding surrender to U.S. authorities.
They also intend to challenge whether the legal requirements for extradition have been satisfied under Ugandan law.
Observers say the proceedings are expected to examine several key questions, including whether the available evidence establishes a prima facie case, whether existing international obligations can substitute for a bilateral extradition agreement, whether Katungi’s constitutional rights have been fully respected throughout the proceedings, and whether extradition to a country that has no reciprocal obligation to surrender its own citizens raises constitutional questions.
Pan-African Voices Join Debate
Beyond legal circles, the extradition has generated reactions from Pan-African activists and political commentators.
Businessman and rancher Barnabas Taremwa Bwaniaga has publicly opposed surrendering Katungi, arguing that Uganda should exercise independent judicial authority in dealing with one of its own citizens.
Pan-African commentator Dan Nkusi has similarly criticised the proposed extradition, describing it as part of what he sees as a broader pattern in which powerful states increasingly use international criminal mechanisms to extend their legal reach beyond their borders.
Nkusi drew comparisons with other international prosecutions that have generated political controversy, arguing that African governments should exercise greater caution when responding to requests from larger powers.
His remarks have fuelled broader discussion on social media regarding Africa’s position within the international legal system.
Government Yet to Comment Fully
Government officials have maintained that Uganda remains committed to honouring its international obligations while allowing the courts to determine the legality of the extradition request.
Authorities have not publicly commented in detail on criticism regarding sovereignty or reciprocity.
Legal experts note that Uganda’s judiciary will ultimately determine whether statutory requirements have been satisfied before any extradition can proceed.
The courts are expected to examine both procedural fairness and substantive legal issues before making any final determination.
A Test of Uganda’s Judicial Independence
For many observers, the case has become more than a criminal prosecution.
It is increasingly viewed as a test of Uganda’s constitutional institutions, judicial independence and interpretation of sovereignty in an era of expanding international law enforcement cooperation.
Supporters of extradition argue that transnational organised crime requires close collaboration among nations and that no country should become a refuge for individuals accused of serious international offences.
Opponents counter that cooperation does not necessarily require surrendering citizens when domestic courts remain capable of conducting prosecutions based on shared evidence.
Both sides agree that allegations of organised crime and terrorism deserve careful investigation.
Where they differ is whether justice should ultimately be administered in Virginia or in Kampala.
Court Hearing Expected
Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court is expected to resume hearing the matter on July 10, when the state is anticipated to present the formal extradition application and supporting documentation.
The hearing is expected to address procedural objections raised by the defense while allowing prosecutors to outline the legal basis upon which Uganda should honour the American request.
Whatever the outcome, legal analysts believe the Katungi case could establish an important precedent for future extradition requests involving Ugandan nationals.
As proceedings continue, the case is likely to remain at the center of national discussion—not only because of the gravity of the allegations against Lt. Michael Katungi, but because it raises broader questions about how Uganda balances international cooperation, constitutional protections and the exercise of sovereign authority in an increasingly interconnected world. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
