By Ben Musanje
A growing number of prominent Ugandans are publicly challenging the government’s handling of extradition proceedings against former Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officer Lt. Michael Mpeirwe Katungi, arguing that while the allegations against him are serious, Uganda must ensure that his constitutional rights and the country’s sovereignty are fully protected before any decision is made to surrender him to the United States.
The latest voices joining the debate include retired intelligence chief Gen. David Ssejusa (Tinyefuza), businessman and rancher Barnabas Taremwa Bwaniaga, Pan-African activist Dan Nkusi and lawyer Frank Kanduho, all of whom have questioned different aspects of the extradition process while calling for greater judicial scrutiny.
Katungi, a former African Union policy adviser and commissioner in the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), is wanted by United States prosecutors over allegations that he participated in a conspiracy involving cocaine trafficking, the supply of military-grade weapons and providing material support to Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), which the United States designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation in February 2025.
The allegations remain before American courts, and Katungi has not been convicted of any offence.
Rather than disputing the seriousness of the charges, those speaking out have focused their concerns on whether Uganda has followed the proper constitutional and legal procedures in responding to the American request.
Retired Gen. David Ssejusa was among the first prominent figures to publicly oppose the extradition. He argued that Uganda should exercise greater caution before surrendering one of its nationals to a foreign jurisdiction, particularly where there is no reciprocal arrangement requiring the United States to extradite its own citizens to Uganda under similar circumstances.
His intervention sparked wider debate, with several legal commentators raising questions about reciprocity, sovereignty and the extent of Uganda’s obligations under international law.
Businessman and commercial farmer Barnabas Taremwa Bwaniaga later issued an open letter expanding on those concerns. In his submission, Bwaniaga argued that the case raises constitutional issues extending beyond the fate of one individual and touching on the integrity of Uganda’s legal institutions.
He questioned whether the appropriate government authorities initiated the extradition request and suggested that if the wrong institutions exercised powers reserved for other offices under Ugandan law, the legality of the entire process could be affected.
Bwaniaga further called on the Executive to review whether the Attorney General, rather than other government agencies, should have handled aspects of the extradition request involving narcotics-related offences.
He also urged government to establish the precise legal framework governing extradition between Uganda and the United States before any surrender takes place, noting that questions remain regarding the absence of a bilateral extradition treaty.
The businessman further recommended that Uganda seek stronger assurances of reciprocal treatment from Washington before approving the transfer of a Ugandan citizen.
Pan-African commentator Dan Nkusi has also entered the debate, describing the extradition proceedings as an important test of Uganda’s sovereignty in an increasingly complex international legal environment.
Nkusi argued that African countries should approach requests from powerful foreign governments with greater scrutiny and ensure that constitutional safeguards are fully respected before surrendering their citizens.
He maintained that the Ugandan courts should conduct a comprehensive judicial review of the extradition request before making any determination.
Nkusi also questioned whether sufficient evidence had been presented before Ugandan authorities to justify extradition, arguing that the allegations remain to be tested during criminal proceedings in the United States.
His comments reflected broader concerns about the balance between international cooperation in combating organised crime and the protection of national sovereignty.
Legal practitioner Frank Kanduho has similarly raised procedural concerns after reviewing court documents filed in support of the extradition application.
In a detailed legal commentary circulated publicly, Kanduho argued that several aspects of the supporting affidavit and extradition process deserved closer judicial examination.
Among the issues he highlighted were questions regarding the authority of the officials pursuing the application, the legal basis upon which extradition proceedings were commenced, and whether existing Ugandan law provides a sufficient framework for surrendering a citizen to the United States in the absence of a bilateral treaty.
He also questioned whether procedural requirements under Uganda’s anti-narcotics legislation and extradition laws had been fully complied with.
Kanduho further argued that inconsistencies contained in documents supporting the American request should receive careful consideration by the courts before any final decision is made.
Another issue repeatedly raised by those opposing the extradition concerns Count Three of the American indictment, which alleges that Katungi provided material support to the CJNG.
According to the submissions made by Bwaniaga and other commentators, much of the alleged conduct predates the United States’ designation of the cartel as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation in February 2025.
They argue that Uganda’s Constitution protects individuals from retrospective criminal liability and that this constitutional question deserves careful examination before extradition proceeds.
The commentators further contend that if constitutional issues remain unresolved, Uganda risks exposing itself to legal challenges by surrendering a citizen before the country’s own courts determine whether the extradition complies with domestic constitutional standards.
Attention has also turned to Constitutional Petition No. 0014 of 2026, which Katungi has reportedly filed challenging the legality of the extradition process.
Although legal experts note that the filing of a constitutional petition does not automatically halt criminal or extradition proceedings, several commentators have urged government to consider temporarily suspending the process until constitutional questions are conclusively determined.
Those advocating for a pause argue that doing so would strengthen public confidence in Uganda’s justice system and ensure that constitutional safeguards are fully observed.
Several of the commentators have also emphasised the importance of maintaining judicial independence throughout the proceedings.
They have urged government officials to avoid public statements suggesting that extradition is inevitable, arguing that the courts should be allowed to determine the matter solely on the basis of evidence and the law.
Beyond legal technicalities, the growing public campaign has framed the Katungi case as one with wider implications for Uganda’s constitutional order.
According to Bwaniaga, the proceedings raise broader questions about the rule of law, the protection of citizens’ rights and the manner in which Uganda engages with international partners on criminal justice matters.
Supporters of extradition maintain that international cooperation remains essential in combating transnational organised crime, terrorism financing and narcotics trafficking, and that Uganda has obligations under international conventions to consider requests from foreign governments.
Those opposing the current process do not necessarily reject international cooperation but argue that such cooperation must operate within Uganda’s constitutional framework and should not compromise procedural fairness or national sovereignty.
As Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court prepares to continue hearing the extradition application, the debate shows no sign of subsiding.
What began as a criminal case involving allegations of international drug trafficking has rapidly evolved into a national discussion about constitutional governance, judicial independence and Uganda’s place within the global system of criminal justice.
Whether the courts ultimately approve or reject the American request, legal analysts say the Katungi proceedings are likely to establish an important precedent for how Uganda handles future extradition requests involving its own citizens and how it balances international legal cooperation with the constitutional protections guaranteed under domestic law. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
