Speaker of Parliament Jacob Oboth-Oboth has directed MPs to refrain from debating the detention of two retired senior military officers, arguing that “matters of military are never discussed in the plenary of any parliament.”
Oboth-Oboth made the ruling today, Tuesday, after chief opposition whip Paul Mwiru invoked Article 23 of the 1995 Constitution, telling the House that Maj Gen (Rtd) Abel Kandiho and Brig Gen (Rtd) Charles Bakahumura were being held incommunicado at an unauthorised location.
Oboth-Oboth acknowledged that the minister of Defence could be invited to address concerns raised by the officers’ families. He, however, maintained that members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) operate under a distinct legal framework.
Minister of Internal Affairs Ephraim Kamuntu undertook to make a statement on the arrests, “if the order of business tomorrow [November 4] permits.”
Kandiho and Bakahumura have both previously headed the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI), which was later restructured into the Defence Intelligence and Security (DIS). Kandiho served as CMI chief from 2017, while Bakahumura held the position from 2012 to 2017 before becoming Chief of Logistics and Engineering.
The two were among 19 generals formally retired on August 20, 2026, at a ceremony held at State House Entebbe. They were detained in early September, less than three weeks after their retirement, as part of a wider military investigation into alleged false intelligence reporting and related offences.
The investigation has been linked to directives issued by Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba.
Other senior intelligence officers have also reportedly been detained in connection with the same investigation. On October 31, 2026, Muhoozi publicly announced Bakahumura’s release, saying that strained relations would be repaired.
However, the status of Kandiho remained unclear in public statements at the time of Tuesday’s parliamentary proceedings.
In his submission, Mwiru relied on Article 23 of the Constitution, which guarantees personal liberty and sets out safeguards governing arrest and detention. These include the requirement that arrested persons be held in legally authorised places, informed promptly of the reasons for their arrest and their right to legal representation, and, in most criminal cases, brought before a court within 48 hours.
The UPDF Act, on the other hand, establishes a separate disciplinary and justice system for persons subject to military law. It provides for military service offences, arrest, custody in military facilities and trial before military courts.
Amendments to the Act, including those enacted in 2025, have further defined the scope of military jurisdiction and the procedures governing such cases. Retired officers may remain subject to certain provisions of military law, depending on the nature of the allegations and when the alleged offences occurred in relation to their service.
Uganda’s parliamentary practice has traditionally treated operational military and intelligence matters with caution during open plenary proceedings. However, ministers may still be called upon to respond to specific issues of public concern, including questions about the welfare of officers’ families.
Human rights observers have previously called for greater transparency regarding the whereabouts, legal basis and duration of detentions involving serving and retired military personnel. Security officials, meanwhile, have maintained that confidentiality is necessary to protect ongoing investigations and military discipline.