The High Court has dealt a major blow to Michael Katungi Mpeirwe, dismissing his attempt to halt extradition proceedings that could see him handed over to the United States to face terrorism, cocaine trafficking and firearms conspiracy charges.
In a ruling delivered on August 3, Acting Justice Simon Peter M. Kinobe threw out Mpeirwe’s application for revision, ruling that the challenge was premature because the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court had not yet made a final decision on the substantive objections raised by the accused.
The decision clears the way for extradition proceedings, which had been frozen by an interim stay issued by the High Court, to resume immediately before the Chief Magistrate’s Court. The judge also vacated all orders that had suspended the hearing and remitted the matter back to the lower court for conclusion according to the law.
Wanted by the United States
Mpeirwe is wanted by American authorities to stand trial before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia over a string of grave offences.
According to court records, the United States accuses him of:
- Conspiring to distribute and possess more than five kilograms of cocaine intended for illegal importation into the United States;
- Conspiring to possess firearms, including machine guns and destructive devices, in furtherance of drug trafficking; and
- Conspiring to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organisation.
The extradition request was supported by evidence from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Uganda’s Criminal Investigations Directorate, diplomatic communications, arrest warrants and approvals from both the Attorney General’s Chambers and the Ministry of Justice.
Arrest Sparked Fierce Legal Battle
Mpeirwe was arrested on June 27 following a warrant issued by the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court after Uganda received an extradition request from the United States government.
He was later remanded to Murchison Bay Prison at Luzira while extradition proceedings commenced.
His lawyers mounted an aggressive legal offensive aimed at collapsing the extradition process before it could proceed.
Among other arguments, they claimed:
- the extradition application relied on defective and improperly commissioned affidavits;
- the proceedings had been commenced using the wrong legal procedure;
- Mpeirwe enjoyed diplomatic immunity because he allegedly served as a diplomat when the alleged offences occurred;
- the extradition request violated Uganda’s Extradition Act by omitting mandatory assurances under the speciality doctrine;
- the Minister of Justice, rather than the Attorney General, unlawfully initiated the process;
- constitutional questions surrounding the legality of Uganda’s extradition arrangement with the United States required referral to the Constitutional Court.
The defence further argued that the entire process was marred by illegalities, procedural irregularities and violations of Mpeirwe’s constitutional rights.
DPP Hits Back
The Director of Public Prosecutions vigorously opposed the application.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Vicky Nabisenke argued that Mpeirwe was attempting to transform the High Court into an appellate court before the extradition hearing had even concluded.
The DPP maintained that:
- the Buganda Road ruling was merely interlocutory rather than final;
- extradition proceedings are not criminal trials determining guilt or innocence;
- the Chief Magistrate properly reserved factual objections for determination after hearing evidence;
- Mpeirwe had already been granted permission to cross-examine prosecution witnesses, preserving his right to challenge the evidence;
- the Minister of Justice acted within powers expressly granted under the Extradition Act.
The prosecution also warned that entertaining repeated revision applications would fragment extradition proceedings, delay justice and undermine Uganda’s international obligations on cooperation in criminal matters.
Judge: Revision Cannot Be Used Midway
Justice Kinobe agreed with the prosecution.
After reviewing the law governing revision, the judge held that the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction is intended to correct final findings or orders, not ongoing proceedings where issues remain unresolved.
Relying on earlier High Court precedent, he stated that revision is available only where a decision finally determines the rights of the parties. Interlocutory decisions that leave issues pending cannot ordinarily be challenged through revision.
The judge noted that the Chief Magistrate had not dismissed or finally determined Mpeirwe’s objections.
Instead, the Magistrate ruled that questions concerning diplomatic immunity, alleged procedural defects, the affidavits, and compliance with extradition law involved mixed questions of law and fact that required a full hearing before they could be decided.
Justice Kinobe found nothing improper about that approach.
“I find no fault in her decision to reserve a ruling on those objections until the conclusion of the inquiry,” the judge held, noting that trial courts possess jurisdiction to defer mixed legal and factual issues until evidence has been fully tested.
He concluded that because no final ruling had yet been made on the contested issues, Mpeirwe’s application sought to challenge matters “not yet decided,” making the entire revision application legally unsustainable.
Proceedings Resume
The judgment means the extradition case now returns to the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court, where prosecutors will continue presenting evidence in support of the United States’ request.
Mpeirwe will still be entitled to challenge the prosecution’s evidence, cross-examine witnesses and argue all the objections previously reserved by the trial court before any final decision is made on whether he should be extradited.
However, the High Court’s ruling removes the legal roadblock that had temporarily suspended the proceedings, bringing Uganda one step closer to deciding whether the suspect should be surrendered to American authorities to face some of the most serious transnational criminal allegations currently before the country’s courts.
