Kampala, Uganda | URN | The Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court has committed a former UPDF soldier, Michael Katungi Mpeirwe, to Luzira prison pending a decision by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs on his extradition to the United States of America.
Katungi is “wanted” in the US to face trial on charges of cocaine trafficking, illegal firearms possession and providing material support to a Mexican drug cartel and a designated foreign terrorist organization.
In a ruling delivered on Friday through the Judiciary’s online system dubbed the Electronic Court Case Management Information System, Chief Magistrate Ritah Kidasa Neumbe has dismissed all the preliminary objections raised by Katungi and ruled that the Ugandan government had established the legal and evidential threshold required for his committal under the Extradition Act.
Katungi is wanted before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on three counts arising from an alleged international drug-trafficking and weapons conspiracy. The first count accuses him of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine, knowing or intending that the drugs would be unlawfully imported into the United States.
The second count alleges a conspiracy to possess firearms, including a machine gun and a destructive device, in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime. The third count alleges conspiracy to provide material support or resources to a designated foreign terrorist organisation. The United States’ extradition request identifies the organisation as Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación and alleges that Katungi and his co-accused attempted to supply, or agreed to supply, military-grade weapons in connection with narcotics trafficking.
Katungi was first produced before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court on June 29, 2026, after a warrant for his arrest was issued under Section 8 of the Extradition Act at the request of the United States government.
He objected to the extradition and, through his lawyers, including Macdusman Kabega, Frank Kandiho and Medard Lubega Sseggona, raised a series of preliminary challenges questioning the procedure used to commence the case, the authority of government officials involved in processing the request, his entitlement to diplomatic immunity, the admissibility of an affidavit filed by a United States official and the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions to conduct the proceedings.
Objections dismissed
The court dismissed all the objections that remained for determination. On the procedure used to commence the case, Katungi’s lawyers had argued that the Extradition Act does not specifically provide for the use of a notice of motion supported by an affidavit.
They also challenged inconsistencies in the case numbering and filing records on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System.
However, Chief Magistrate Kidasa ruled that Section 10 of the Extradition Act gives the presiding magistrate discretion on the manner in which an extradition hearing is conducted, subject to the general framework of criminal procedure.
The court found that Katungi had suffered no prejudice because he had been served with the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, had cross-examined the government’s witness at length and filed detailed submissions on both the preliminary objections and merits of the extradition request.
The magistrate also found that inconsistencies in the ECCMIS case numbering were administrative and did not amount to a jurisdictional defect.
The court has further rejected an argument that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs had acted without authority by processing the request. According to Katungi’s lawyers, since the allegations involved narcotics, the request ought to have been channelled through the Attorney General under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act.But the court has disagreed with them and found that that extradition is governed by the Extradition Act and is different from mutual legal assistance in criminal investigations.
The magistrate said the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act relied upon by the defence relate to assistance between countries in investigations, including obtaining evidence and documents, rather than the surrender of a person to face trial in another country.
The court has also found no illegality in the involvement of the Solicitor General, noting that the Interpretation Act permits the Solicitor General, in prescribed circumstances, to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Attorney General.
Diplomatic immunity
The court has also rejected Katungi’s claim to diplomatic immunity. His lawyers had argued that he was previously a deputy head of mission, most recently in Nigeria, and was therefore protected from the extradition proceedings.
The court found that diplomatic immunity under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, as incorporated into Ugandan law through the Diplomatic Privileges Act, primarily protects diplomatic agents from the jurisdiction of the receiving state.
The magistrate held that Nigeria was the relevant receiving state in Katungi case and that neither Uganda, as the sending state, nor the United States, to which he had not been accredited, was a receiving state for purposes of the claimed immunity.
The court therefore ruled that there was no diplomatic immunity capable of preventing Uganda from exercising jurisdiction over him or from considering the United States extradition request.
Another issue in this case was the involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute and conduct extradition proceedings. Katungi’s lawyers had argued that extradition proceedings are a special category of proceedings rather than ordinary criminal proceedings and therefore do not fall within the DPP’s constitutional mandate. The defence had noted that no Ugandan police file, station diary reference or crime report book number had been opened against their client in connection with the alleged conduct.
The court rejected the argument, holding that Article 120 of the Constitution gives the DPP powers to institute and conduct criminal proceedings, while Section 10 of the Extradition Act requires extradition hearings before a magistrate to be conducted, as nearly as possible, in the same manner and with the same jurisdiction and powers as criminal proceedings.
According to the Magistrate, the Constitution and the Extradition Act, read together, give the DPP authority to conduct the judicial phase of extradition proceedings on behalf of the Republic of Uganda. The absence of a Ugandan police file, the court said, did not affect the DPP’s standing to conduct proceedings concerning the surrender of a person to answer a foreign indictment.
As such, the Court has found that Katungi’s identity was not in dispute and that the United States warrant and extradition documents had been properly authenticated under Sections 24 and 25 of the Extradition Act.
Kule’s cross-examination
The court has relied on the extradition request, indictment and arrest warrant submitted by the United States, together with the surviving evidence of Detective Assistant Superintendent of Police Kule Yona of the Criminal Investigations Directorate. Kule told the court that he personally received and processed the extradition request in Uganda, participated in tracing and arresting Katungi , verified his identity and caused him to be produced before court.
During cross-examination, however, Kule acknowledged that he had not participated in the United States investigation and had no personal knowledge of whether Katungi had conspired to traffic narcotics, possess firearms or provide support to a terrorist organisation. He also confirmed that no Ugandan police file had been opened against Katungi over the alleged conduct.
The magistrate ruled that the authenticated United States documents could independently be relied upon under the Extradition Act and did not require the personal attendance of every foreign official involved in preparing them. The court has also found that the principle of dual criminality has been satisfied. Under this principle, the alleged conduct must amount to an offence in both the requesting and requested countries, even if the offences do not have identical names or statutory wording.
The court found that the alleged cocaine trafficking corresponds to offences under Uganda’s narcotics legislation; that the alleged firearms conspiracy corresponds to offences under Uganda’s firearms, conspiracy and narcotics laws.
U.S. prosecutors allege that Katungi was part of an international criminal network that conspired to supply military-grade weapons, including rocket launchers, grenades, sniper rifles, anti-personnel mines, anti-aircraft weapons and surface-to-air missile systems, to Mexico’s Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), which the United States has designated a foreign terrorist organisation.
He is also accused of participating in a conspiracy to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine, knowing the drugs would ultimately be smuggled into the United States.
According to the indictment, Katungi allegedly worked with Bulgarian national Peter Dimitrov Mirchev, Kenyan national Elisha Odhiambo Asumo and Tanzanian national Subiro Osmund Mwapinga to obtain fraudulent End-User Certificates intended to conceal the true destination of the weapons.
Prosecutors say the certificates were used to facilitate the export of a test shipment of 50 AK-47 rifles and ammunition from Bulgaria, as the group allegedly planned to supply weapons worth about €53.7 million (roughly US$58 million) using falsified documentation. Court records further allege that Mirchev had previously been linked to convicted international arms trafficker Viktor Bout.
Katungi has been on remand in Luzira prison since June 29th, 2026.
Meanwhile, Katungi had challenged his extradition process in the Constitutional Court. But following today’s decision, it implies that the pending constitutional petition will remain in the system for only academic purposes.
