The decision by Uganda to begin extradition proceedings against former UPDF officer Lt. Michael Katungi Mpeirwe has sparked a heated national debate, with some leaders and activists questioning whether the country should hand over one of its citizens to face trial in the United States.
Lt. Katungi, a former Uganda People’s Defence Forces officer, former African Union policy adviser, and commissioner in the Patriotic League of Uganda, was arrested and later produced before Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court before being remanded to Luzira Prison. His arrest followed a request from the United States government seeking to begin extradition proceedings against him.
American authorities accuse Katungi of involvement in an alleged international criminal network involving cocaine trafficking, illegal arms deals, and providing support to a foreign terrorist organisation linked to Mexico’s Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación. However, his supporters argue that these remain allegations that have not yet been proven in any Ugandan court.
The controversy has grown after several prominent Ugandans questioned why Uganda should surrender its citizen to another country before the allegations are tested through Uganda’s own justice system.
Retired Gen. David Ssejusa, a former Coordinator of Intelligence Agencies, has been among the strongest voices opposing the extradition. He argues that Uganda risks creating an unequal relationship where African countries easily surrender their citizens to powerful nations while expecting the same cooperation in return.
Gen. Ssejusa has questioned whether the United States would ever surrender one of its own citizens to Uganda to face trial, arguing that the principle of fairness must apply equally between nations.
“The issue is not about protecting anyone accused of wrongdoing,” critics of the extradition process argue. “The issue is whether Uganda should give up its judicial authority over its own citizens without first ensuring that all legal protections have been respected.”
One of the major issues surrounding the case is the absence of a direct extradition treaty between Uganda and the United States. Authorities have instead relied on international agreements, including the 1988 United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, alongside Uganda’s Extradition Act.
Supporters of the extradition process say these legal frameworks allow Uganda to cooperate with other countries in fighting international crime. However, opponents insist that cooperation does not automatically mean surrender, and that Uganda still has the right to carefully examine every request before taking such a serious step.
The debate has also attracted attention because of Uganda’s recently enacted Protection of Sovereignty Act, 2026. The law was introduced with the stated aim of protecting Uganda’s national interests and ensuring that foreign influence does not undermine the country’s independence.
Critics have questioned whether surrendering a Ugandan citizen to face trial abroad, based mainly on a foreign indictment, is consistent with the spirit of a law designed to protect national sovereignty.
They argue that Uganda should demonstrate confidence in its own institutions by investigating the allegations itself and, if there is sufficient evidence, prosecuting Katungi in Ugandan courts.
This position is supported by the argument known as the active personality principle, which allows countries to prosecute their own citizens for crimes allegedly committed outside their borders. Supporters believe Uganda can cooperate with international partners while still maintaining control over its own justice process.
According to this view, allowing Uganda to handle the case would not mean protecting anyone from accountability. Instead, it would show that Uganda has functioning courts capable of dealing with serious international crimes.
The case has also raised wider concerns about the balance of power in international justice. Some Pan-African voices argue that powerful countries have historically used international legal systems to pressure weaker nations, while protecting their own citizens from similar treatment.
They point to past global inequalities and argue that international cooperation must be based on mutual respect rather than a system where justice flows mainly from developing countries toward powerful states.
However, supporters of extradition maintain that international crimes require international cooperation. They argue that if credible evidence exists against Katungi, he should face the appropriate legal process regardless of where the trial takes place.
As the matter continues before Ugandan courts, the judiciary faces the responsibility of examining whether the extradition request meets all legal requirements. The court must consider issues such as whether proper procedures were followed, whether the accused has access to necessary documents, and whether his constitutional rights are protected.
At the centre of the debate is a difficult question: should Uganda prioritize international cooperation or insist on handling the case within its own legal system?
For many Ugandans following the case, the answer lies in finding a balance — ensuring that serious allegations are investigated while also protecting national sovereignty and the rights of every citizen.
Lt. Michael Katungi’s case is therefore bigger than one individual. It has become a test of Uganda’s approach to justice, international relations, and the meaning of sovereignty in a changing world.
As the court prepares to continue hearing the extradition matter, many will be watching closely to see whether Uganda chooses a path that satisfies both the demands of justice and the principles of national independence.
