SFC Pick Up Former Kampala Mayor Elias Lukwago

The recent apprehension of former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago by Uganda's Special Forces Command (SFC) has ignited significant legal debate concerning the scope of military powers in civilian arrests and adherence to constitutional due process. Lukwago's residence was reportedly entered by SFC operatives scaling a perimeter wall, without an immediate explanation for the arrest, raising questions about lawful entry and the right to liberty. This incident, occurring amidst Lukwago's legal representation of an opposition figure in a high-profile treason case and his efforts to serve court papers on a military general, underscores persistent concerns about the rule of law, human rights, and the role of the military in Uganda's civilian affairs. The event highlights the precarious position of legal professionals and opposition figures in the country.

On June 15, 2026, Uganda witnessed a dramatic incident as operatives of the Special Forces Command (SFC), an elite unit of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF), reportedly apprehended former Kampala Lord Mayor and prominent lawyer Erias Lukwago from his residence in Wakaliga. Accounts indicate that SFC personnel scaled the perimeter wall of his home in the early morning hours to effect the arrest, without immediately informing Lukwago of the reasons for his detention. This method of arrest, involving military forces in a civilian matter and bypassing standard police procedures, has sparked widespread concern among legal practitioners and human rights advocates in Uganda and beyond.

The incident is particularly salient given Lukwago's role as lead defence counsel for Dr. Kizza Besigye in an ongoing treason and national security case, and his legal team's concurrent efforts to serve court documents on Chief of Defence Forces General Muhoozi Kainerugaba. The circumstances surrounding Lukwago's arrest, including the involvement of the SFC and the manner of entry into his private residence, raise critical questions about the legality of the operation, the boundaries of military authority, and the protection of fundamental human rights enshrined in the Ugandan Constitution. This article delves into the legal framework governing arrests in Uganda, scrutinizes the actions of the SFC, and examines the broader implications for the rule of law and the independence of the legal profession.

The legal framework for arrests in Uganda is primarily governed by the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, the Criminal Procedure Code Act (Cap 122), and the Police Act (Cap 303). Article 23 of the Constitution guarantees the protection of personal liberty, stipulating that no person shall be deprived of liberty except in specified lawful cases. It further mandates that an arrested person must be informed immediately, in a language they understand, of the reasons for their arrest and their right to a lawyer of their choice. Crucially, the Constitution requires that a person arrested or detained for a criminal offence must be brought to court as soon as possible, and in any case, not later than forty-eight hours from the time of their arrest.

The Criminal Procedure Code Act and the Police Act outline the procedures for lawful arrests, emphasizing that arrests are typically carried out by police officers, either with a warrant issued by a magistrate or without a warrant under specific circumstances, such as reasonable suspicion of having committed a cognizable offence. Entry into premises for the purpose of arrest generally requires a warrant, or, in its absence, a demand for admittance and notification of authority and purpose before force can be used to enter. The Special Forces Command (SFC) is a specialized component of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF), tasked with carrying out specialized missions or operations. While the UPDF Act (2005) outlines the military's role, the involvement of military personnel in civilian arrests, particularly without the direct involvement or command of the police, has been a contentious issue. Recent legislative developments, including a bill passed by Parliament allowing military trials for civilians, have further blurred the lines between military and civilian jurisdiction, despite a Supreme Court ruling in January 2025 that declared such trials unconstitutional.

The arrest of Erias Lukwago by the SFC raises several critical legal questions regarding the proper exercise of state power and adherence to constitutional safeguards. Firstly, the primary responsibility for civilian arrests and law enforcement lies with the Uganda Police Force, as stipulated in the Police Act. The deployment of the SFC, a military unit, for what appears to be a civilian arrest, without clear evidence of a police-led operation or a declared state of emergency, directly challenges the principle of civilian policing and the separation of powers. While the SFC is a component of the UPDF, its mandate is for specialized missions, and its involvement in routine civilian law enforcement is legally ambiguous and often criticized for overstepping boundaries.

Secondly, the manner of entry into Lukwago's residence, by scaling the perimeter wall, appears to contravene established legal procedures for search and entry. The Criminal Procedure Code Act generally requires a warrant for entry into a private dwelling for arrest, or at least a demand for admittance and notification of purpose if a warrant cannot be obtained without allowing escape. Lukwago's statements indicate that no reason for the deployment was given, and no communication was made before the operatives entered his compound. This suggests a potential violation of his right to privacy and protection against arbitrary search and entry.

Furthermore, the reported failure to immediately inform Lukwago of the reasons for his arrest and his right to legal counsel constitutes a direct breach of Article 23(3) of the Constitution. The Chief of Defence Forces, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, later confirmed the detention on social media, posting images of a blindfolded Lukwago and making provocative statements, which further compounds concerns about due process and humane treatment. Such actions by a high-ranking military official, especially in the context of an arrest, can be seen as undermining the presumption of innocence and the dignity of the arrested person.

The timing and context of the arrest are also highly significant. Lukwago is a prominent opposition figure and a lawyer representing Dr. Kizza Besigye in a treason case. His legal team was reportedly in the process of serving court papers on General Muhoozi Kainerugaba concerning alleged social media threats. This raises concerns about the arrest being an act of intimidation or reprisal against a legal professional for carrying out his duties, thereby impinging on the independence of the bar and the right to legal representation. The broader pattern of arbitrary arrests and detentions of opposition figures and human rights defenders in Uganda, often involving security forces and detention in ungazetted facilities, has been consistently highlighted by human rights organizations. The Supreme Court's ruling against military trials for civilians, and the subsequent parliamentary efforts to re-legitimize them, underscore a contentious legal environment where the boundaries of military jurisdiction are frequently tested.

The arrest of Erias Lukwago by the Special Forces Command represents a concerning development for the rule of law and human rights in Uganda. The involvement of military personnel in a civilian arrest, the alleged unlawful entry into a private residence, and the apparent disregard for constitutional rights such as the right to be informed of the reasons for arrest and access to legal counsel, collectively point to serious procedural irregularities and potential abuses of power. This incident, set against the backdrop of Lukwago's legal work for an opposition leader and his engagement in litigation against a senior military official, highlights the vulnerability of legal professionals and political opponents in the current Ugandan political climate.

Practitioners must remain vigilant in upholding constitutional principles and challenging actions that undermine due process and the independence of the legal profession. This case underscores the imperative for strict adherence to the separation of powers, ensuring that civilian law enforcement remains distinct from military operations, and that all arrests are conducted in strict compliance with the law. Legal challenges to such arrests, including applications for habeas corpus and claims for compensation for unlawful detention, are crucial avenues for seeking accountability and reinforcing constitutionalism. The international community and civil society must continue to monitor these developments closely, advocating for the protection of human rights and the strengthening of democratic institutions in Uganda.