Former Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) director of diaspora affairs Michael Katungi Mpeirwe has lost his bid to block his extradition to the United States, where he is wanted to face charges arising from an alleged international drug-trafficking and weapons conspiracy.
Katungi, a former African Union policy adviser and Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) soldier, is wanted before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on three counts relating to alleged cocaine trafficking, firearms offences and providing material support to a designated foreign terrorist organisation.
Buganda Road chief magistrate Ritah Kidasa Neumbe on Friday dismissed the preliminary objections raised by Katungi and ruled that the Ugandan government had met the legal and evidential threshold required for his committal under the Extradition Act.
The decision clears the way for his extradition to the United States, although Katungi may pursue other legal avenues against the decision.
The US charges
According to the US extradition request, the first count accuses Katungi of conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute five kilogrammes 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 organisation named in the extradition request is Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), a Mexican drug cartel designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organisation.
US prosecutors allege that Katungi and his co-accused attempted to supply, or agreed to supply, military-grade weapons in connection with narcotics trafficking. Katungi denies the allegations.
Defence challenges extradition process
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 US government.
He subsequently challenged the extradition through lawyers, including Macdusman Kabega, Frank Kandiho and Medard Lubega Sseggona, raising several preliminary objections.
The defence questioned the procedure used to commence the extradition proceedings, the authority of government officials involved in processing the request, Katungi’s claim to diplomatic immunity, the admissibility of an affidavit filed by a US official and the authority of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to conduct the proceedings.
The court dismissed all the objections that remained for determination. On the procedure used to commence the case, Katungi’s lawyers argued that the Extradition Act does not expressly provide for an extradition application to be brought by way of a Notice of Motion supported by an affidavit.
They also pointed to inconsistencies in the case numbering and filing records on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
Chief magistrate Kidasa, however, ruled that Section 10 of the Extradition Act gives a magistrate discretion over the manner in which an extradition hearing is conducted, subject to the applicable criminal procedure framework.
The court found that Katungi had not suffered prejudice because he had been served with the evidence relied upon by the prosecution, had cross-examined the government’s witness and had filed detailed submissions challenging both the preliminary objections and the substance of the extradition request.
The magistrate also found that the inconsistencies in ECCMIS case numbering were administrative irregularities and did not amount to a jurisdictional defect.
Court rejects challenge to Justice Ministry
The court also rejected the defence argument that the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs had acted without authority in processing the extradition request.
Katungi’s lawyers argued that because the allegations involved narcotics, the request should have been channelled through the Attorney General under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Control) Act.
The court disagreed, holding that extradition is governed by the Extradition Act and is distinct from mutual legal assistance in criminal investigations.
The magistrate said the provisions of the narcotics law relied upon by the defence concern cooperation between countries in criminal investigations, including obtaining evidence and documents, rather than the surrender of a person to face trial in another country.
The court 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 rejected
Katungi also claimed diplomatic immunity, arguing through his lawyers that he had previously served as a deputy head of mission, most recently in Nigeria, and was therefore protected from the extradition proceedings.
The court rejected the argument. The magistrate held 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.
In Katungi’s case, the court found that Nigeria was the relevant receiving state and that neither Uganda, as the sending state, nor the United States, to which he had not been accredited, constituted a receiving state for purposes of the claimed immunity.
The court therefore concluded that Katungi did not enjoy diplomatic immunity that could prevent Uganda from exercising jurisdiction over him or considering the US extradition request.
DPP had authority to prosecute extradition case
Another major issue concerned the involvement of the DPP in instituting and conducting the extradition proceedings.
Katungi’s lawyers argued that extradition proceedings are a special category of proceedings rather than ordinary criminal proceedings and therefore fall outside the DPP’s constitutional mandate.
They also pointed out that no Ugandan police file, Station Diary reference or Crime Report Book number had been opened against Katungi in relation to the alleged conduct.
The court rejected the argument. It held 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.
The magistrate therefore held that the Constitution and Extradition Act, read together, give the DPP authority to conduct the judicial phase of extradition proceedings on behalf 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.
Court finds extradition evidence sufficient
The court further found that Katungi’s identity was not in dispute and that the US arrest warrant and extradition documents had been properly authenticated under Sections 24 and 25 of the Extradition Act.
The magistrate relied on the extradition request, indictment and arrest warrant submitted by the US authorities, together with evidence from detective ASP Kule Yona of the Criminal Investigations Directorate.
Kule told 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 US investigation and had no personal knowledge of whether Katungi had conspired to traffic narcotics, possess firearms or provide material support to a terrorist organisation.
He also confirmed that no Ugandan police file had been opened against Katungi in relation to the alleged conduct.
The magistrate nevertheless ruled that the authenticated US documents could independently be relied upon under the Extradition Act and that it was not necessary for every foreign official involved in preparing the documents to personally attend the Ugandan proceedings.
Dual criminality satisfied
The court also found that the principle of dual criminality had been satisfied. The principle requires the conduct for which extradition is sought to constitute an offence in both the requesting and requested countries, even where the offences have different names or statutory wording.
The magistrate found that the alleged cocaine trafficking corresponded to offences under Uganda’s narcotics legislation, while the alleged firearms conspiracy corresponded to offences under Uganda’s firearms, conspiracy and narcotics laws.
Alleged international weapons network
US prosecutors allege that Katungi was part of an international criminal network that sought to supply military-grade weapons to the CJNG, including rocket launchers, grenades, sniper rifles, anti-personnel mines, anti-aircraft weapons and surface-to-air missile systems.
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 weapons’ true destination.
Prosecutors allege that 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, equivalent to approximately Shs234 billion, using falsified documentation.
Court records further allege that Mirchev had previously been linked to convicted international arms trafficker Viktor Bout.
These allegations remain untested and Katungi is presumed innocent unless proved guilty before a competent court.
Katungi has been on remand at Luzira Prison since June 29, 2026. He had also challenged the extradition process before the Constitutional Court. The latest ruling, however, means the extradition proceedings before the magistrate’s court can proceed despite that separate constitutional challenge, unless a competent court issues an order stopping his surrender.