The case of retired UPDF officer and former African Union policy adviser Michael Katungi Mpeirwe is no longer just an extradition matter. It has become a defining test of Uganda’s sovereignty, the independence of its justice system and the extent to which the country is prepared to exercise its constitutional authority over its own citizens.
Katungi faces serious allegations in the United States, including conspiracy to traffic cocaine, conspiracy to supply firearms and providing material support to Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG). If those allegations are proved, he should face the full force of the law.
But where should that law be applied?
That question goes to the heart of national sovereignty.
Retired Gen. David Sejusa has argued that Uganda should refuse the American extradition request and instead prosecute Katungi before Ugandan courts. His argument is neither unprecedented nor legally absurd. It is grounded in a long-established principle of international criminal law that permits states to prosecute their own nationals for crimes allegedly committed abroad.
The principle is simple: a sovereign state should not be quick to surrender jurisdiction over its citizens where it has the legal and institutional capacity to administer justice itself.
The Constitution declares that all power belongs to the people of Uganda and shall be exercised in accordance with the Constitution. That sovereignty is expressed not only through elections and Parliament but also through independent courts capable of dispensing justice without outsourcing it.
If Uganda cannot try one of its own citizens for alleged international crimes, what does that say about confidence in its own legal system?
Supporters of extradition argue that Uganda signed extradition treaties voluntarily and is therefore honouring its international obligations. That is a valid legal argument. International cooperation is essential in combating organised crime, terrorism and drug trafficking.
But treaties should never be interpreted in a manner that unnecessarily weakens the authority of domestic institutions when lawful alternatives exist.
International law recognises the active personality principle, under which a country may prosecute its nationals regardless of where an alleged offence occurred. Many countries invoke this principle to preserve their sovereign jurisdiction.
Germany generally prohibits the extradition of its own citizens except in narrowly defined circumstances within the European Union. France has traditionally preferred prosecuting French nationals at home. Brazil’s Constitution bars the extradition of Brazilian-born citizens. Russia similarly refuses to extradite its nationals, insisting that they be prosecuted under Russian law if sufficient evidence exists.
These countries are not protecting criminals; they are protecting jurisdiction. They cooperate with foreign investigators, exchange intelligence and evidence, yet they insist that justice involving their own citizens should ordinarily be administered by their own courts.
Uganda should ask why that principle should not equally apply here.
The United States itself vigorously protects its judicial authority. While American law permits the extradition of U.S. citizens in some circumstances where treaties allow it, Washington overwhelmingly prosecutes crimes affecting its interests in its own courts and routinely exercises criminal jurisdiction far beyond its borders. American prosecutors frequently seek foreign nationals whose alleged conduct has an impact on the United States, demonstrating a strong commitment to enforcing U.S. law wherever jurisdiction exists.
If powerful nations place such value on exercising their own jurisdiction, why should weaker nations be expected to relinquish theirs so readily?
This imbalance is what Gen. Sejusa describes as evidence of unequal international relations. His language is deliberately provocative, characterising such arrangements as a continuation of neo-colonial patterns in which stronger states project legal power beyond their borders while weaker states comply.
Whether one accepts that description or not, the underlying concern deserves attention.
Across Africa, extradition requests from the United States have become increasingly common, involving cybercrime, terrorism, narcotics trafficking and corruption. Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana and South Africa have all extradited suspects under bilateral treaties.
Yet relatively little attention has been paid to whether African states are simultaneously strengthening their own ability to prosecute complex transnational crimes or becoming increasingly dependent on foreign jurisdictions.
Justice should not require the export of sovereignty.
If the United States possesses evidence against Katungi, that evidence can be shared through established channels of mutual legal assistance. Ugandan investigators can work alongside their American counterparts. Ugandan prosecutors can present the case before Ugandan judges. If convicted, Katungi can be punished under Ugandan law.
Such an approach would preserve both accountability and sovereignty.
Those who insist that only an American courtroom can deliver justice inadvertently diminish Uganda’s own judiciary. They suggest that our courts are inadequate whenever a case involves powerful foreign interests.
That is a dangerous precedent.
The issue before Uganda is not whether crime should be punished. It unquestionably should. The issue is whether Uganda is prepared to exercise its own constitutional authority or whether it will increasingly defer to foreign jurisdictions whenever politically or diplomatically convenient.
Sovereignty is not merely the absence of colonial rule. It is the continuing ability of a nation to govern itself, enforce its own laws and administer justice over its own citizens.
Michael Katungi’s guilt or innocence remains for a competent court to determine.
But the decision about where that determination should occur will speak volumes about Uganda’s confidence in its institutions and its understanding of sovereignty.
Nations do not lose sovereignty in a single dramatic moment. They surrender it gradually, one concession at a time. The Katungi case presents Uganda with an opportunity to demonstrate that international cooperation need not come at the expense of national jurisdiction.
Justice can be served. The question is whether Uganda will serve it as a sovereign equal or as a subordinate participant in someone else’s system.
The Writer is a Ugandan Journalist with passion for current African Affairs.
adamkungu7@gmail.com