Under what circumstances can security agencies other than the police arrest people in Uganda?

Kampala, Uganda | URN | The arrest and detention of former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago have reignited debate over the constitutional powers of Uganda’s security agencies and the limits of their authority when dealing with civilians. On Monday, June 15, Uganda People’s Defense Forces-UPDF officers seized Lukwago from his residence in Wakaliga in Kampala’s Lubaga division.

The group reportedly arrived in two “drone” vehicles, one bearing a registration number and another without number plates. The arrest, which the opposition leaders and human rights activists described as an abduction, was later acknowledged through social media posts by the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), Lt. Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who also chairs the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), a political pressure group aligned with the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM).

In a series of posts on X, the CDF claimed Lukwago had pleaded for his life while being “punished” and shared photographs purportedly showing the opposition politician in custody. One image showed Lukwago wearing a white T-shirt with his hands folded, while another appeared to depict him in a diaper.

Another image was of a man on the floor, blindfolded with a cloth. The social media updates continued throughout the detention, with the CDF announcing that the “prisoner,” whom he referred to as an “idiot,” would be handed over to police before later reversing that position, saying Lukwago would spend another night undergoing “kiboko” (caning).

Throughout the episode, the Uganda Police Force maintained that it had not participated in the arrest and did not know Lukwago’s whereabouts. The silence from official government institutions prompted reactions from opposition leaders, civil society organisations, human rights defenders, and the Uganda Law Society, all of whom issued statements demanding accountability and respect for constitutional safeguards.

After spending two nights in detention, Lukwago eventually resurfaced at Kira Road Police Station, where only one of his lawyers, Medard Ssegona, was initially granted access while relatives and other legal representatives waited outside. Ugandans later learned that Lukwago was to be formally charged in Makindye court, marking the beginning of legal proceedings nearly 48 hours after his arrest. He was later remanded to Luzira Prison after being charged with treason-related offences.

The incident has renewed questions about the respective roles of Uganda’s security agencies and whether constitutional procedures governing arrests are consistently observed. Uganda’s Constitution clearly outlines which institutions possess arrest powers and the safeguards that must accompany every arrest. Under Articles 211 to 214 of the Constitution and the Police Act, the Uganda Police Force (UPF) is the primary civilian agency responsible for maintaining law and order, preventing crime, investigating offences, and arresting suspects.

Police officers may arrest a person without a warrant where they have reasonable grounds to suspect that the individual has committed an arrestable offence. They are further required to ensure that suspects are detained in legally recognised facilities, informed of the reasons for their arrest, and produced before the court within the constitutionally prescribed time limits. This means that the police remain Uganda’s principal law enforcement agency. While addressing journalists on Wednesday, Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi argued that every arrest must comply with constitutional procedures regardless of a suspect’s political affiliation.

Ssenyonyi, who last week reiterated calls for accountability of persons whose whereabouts remain unknown, sought Parliament’s attention on the matter. He said that he would write to the Speaker of Parliament, Jacob Marksons Oboth-Oboth, to reconvene Parliament to handle the security situation in the country, which he noted is very urgent. The Speaker had earlier adjourned the house to July 7, 2026.

But Can Other Security Agencies Arrest Civilians?

The Constitution also recognises circumstances under which agencies other than the police may lawfully arrest individuals, although these powers are limited. Articles 208 to 210 establish the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) primarily for the defence of Uganda’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Its principal mandate is national defence rather than routine civilian policing.

The military may assist civil authorities in exceptional situations, including riots, emergencies, or other circumstances where police capacity is overwhelmed, as provided for under the UPDF Act and related laws. However, such deployment does not ordinarily transfer general policing powers to the military. Where military personnel arrest civilians while assisting civilian authorities, the suspects are generally expected to be handed over promptly to the Uganda Police Force for lawful processing.

Consequently, specialised military units such as the Special Forces Command (SFC) do not possess a general mandate to arrest civilians suspected of ordinary criminal offences outside circumstances specifically authorised by law. Besides the uniformed personnel, Ugandan laws also provide for a limited form of citizen arrests. A private citizen who witnesses the commission of a serious offence or reasonably suspects that a person has committed such an offence may restrain or arrest that individual.

However, the law requires that the suspect be handed over immediately to the nearest police station. Private individuals have no legal authority to detain suspects in private locations or conduct prolonged investigations. Mukono County North MP, Abdallah Kiwanuka, emphasised this principle, noting that “even you and me are allowed to arrest a suspect,” but only for purposes of immediately handing the individual over to police because every accused person remains presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Whether an arrest is carried out by police, another authorised agency, or a private citizen, the Constitution guarantees important protections for every suspect. These include the right to be informed of the reason for arrest, detention only in legally recognised facilities, production before a court within 48 hours if continued detention is sought, and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty by a competent court. Holding suspects in undisclosed or unofficial detention facilities falls outside these constitutional safeguards and has repeatedly attracted criticism from human rights organisations.

These protections are intended to guard against arbitrary detention and abuse of state power. Human rights organisations and legal experts, especially from the Uganda Law Society, have increasingly criticised the involvement of military personnel in civilian law enforcement, arguing that such actions often bypass constitutional safeguards.

Where civilians are arrested by military or security operatives instead of the police, concerns frequently arise over detention in ungazetted facilities, denial of access to lawyers and family members, and failure to comply with the constitutional 48-hour rule. Critics argue that where military agencies arrest civilians outside their legally defined mandate, particularly in matters involving political activity or ordinary criminal investigations, such actions risk being considered arbitrary and unconstitutional.

It is this concern that has fuelled the current debate following the arrest of Erias Lukwago and other opposition figures. Joel Ssenyonyi, the leader of the opposition, and other opposition leaders maintain that the issue is not whether suspects can be arrested, but whether the law governing arrests is being followed. They argue that where security agencies other than the police arrest civilians without lawful authority, detain them in ungazetted locations, deny them access to legal representation, or fail to produce them before a court within 48 hours, the constitutional guarantees protecting individual liberty are undermined.

Alex Kakooza, the Member of Parliament representing Older Persons, said the developments are unusual but urged caution until all the facts are established. “It is important to have the facts right by listening to both sides. There may be reasons why events unfolded the way they did. We should avoid rushing to conclusions before all the facts are established,” he said. The controversy has once again placed Uganda’s criminal justice system under public scrutiny and revived calls for all security agencies to operate strictly within their constitutional mandates and in accordance with the rule of law.

Share on: WhatsApp