President takes oath at Kololo earlier in May

A profound state of fear increasingly pervades public life in Uganda.

For many citizens, the traditional markers of constitutional governance appear increasingly overshadowed by an alternative power center operating beyond the restraints of civilian law.

The country has been plunged into mounting public anxiety by a relentless series of high-handed actions that project the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, as all-powerful, unaccountable, and effectively beyond the reach of the supreme law of the land.

The Breakdown of Due Process

The most chilling manifestation of this unchecked authority unfolded in the pre- dawn darkness of mid-June 2026. Armed security operatives in unmarked “drone” minibuses scaled residential fences in Wakaliga, Kampala, forcibly entering the residence of former Kampala Lord Mayor and senior advocate, Ssalongo Erias Lukwago.

Abducted without a judicial warrant, Lukwago was held incommunicado for days – ironically, just as he was preparing to serve court papers on the CDF regarding alleged social media threats.

When Lukwago finally appeared before a court to face charges of misprision of treason, the institutional mask had completely fallen. This extrajudicial detention was not merely acknowledged; it was publicly celebrated.

Via his verified X account, General Muhoozi openly claimed responsibility, posting photographs of a blindfolded Lukwago in a “basement” safe house, boasting of his physical vulnerability, and threatening “kiboko” (caning).

When the head of a state’s military apparatus can summarily detain an officer of the court, boast about his mistreatment, and threaten cultural leaders, a dangerous threshold has been crossed.

This is sovereign lawlessness – a condition in which a dominant actor signals that he is answerable to no one, standing effectively above Parliament, the courts, and the citizenry.

A Parallel Source of State Authority

In political theory, this describes a dangerous mutation of state authority. It combines Carl Schmitt’s notion of the sovereign deciding on the exception with James Madison’s warning regarding “parchment barriers” – the reality that constitutional texts become ineffective when institutions lack the will to enforce them.

Law ceases to function as a neutral framework and becomes an instrument deployed selectively against opponents while granting immunity to those in power. This pattern extends far beyond individual detentions.

General Muhoozi increasingly projects himself as a parallel source of state authority, exercising powers entirely outside his military mandate. He publicly declared the cancellation of the multi-trillion-shilling Security Roads and Expressway Monitoring Project involving Turkey, exposing Uganda to potential diplomatic and financial liabilities.

He has repeatedly threatened political opponents – including Dr. Kizza Besigye, Robert Kyagulanyi, Joel Ssenyonyi, and Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda – and even vowed to personally appoint a Leader of the Opposition to replace Ssenyonyi.

He openly commands the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), a partisan political vehicle operating under the stewardship of a serving military officer in flagrant violation of Article 208(2) of the Constitution, which requires the UPDF to remain non-partisan.

These developments suggest a shift beyond competitive authoritarianism toward overt praetorian military influence. Alarmingly, warnings about arbitrary power are no longer confined to the opposition.

When Internal Affairs Minister Maj. Gen. (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire raised concerns about rogue intelligence elements allegedly killing people, the CDF publicly warned that he had “provoked lions enough” and risked arrest.

Institutional Humiliation and Judicial Vulnerability

The earlier NRM model relied on legal processes and bureaucratic manoeuvres to preserve a veneer of constitutional order. The emerging model dispenses with subtlety; it publicly humiliates institutions.

Dismissing parliamentary committees, and labeling independent media such as NTV and the Daily Monitor as “circus clowns,” represent attempts to subordinate historical legitimacy to raw military coercion.

The Constitution vests ultimate civilian control of the armed forces in the President as Commander-in-Chief. Consequently, the persistence of these controversies inevitably raises broader questions about whether constitutional chains of accountability remain fully operational.

When extraordinary exercises of power repeatedly occur without visible restraint or correction, public confidence in constitutional governance inevitably deteriorates. The judiciary occupies an especially vulnerable position in this environment.

Courts remain physically intact, but risk losing the practical capacity to check executive and military overreach. When citizens begin to perceive that judges operate under fear or institutional constraint, confidence in the administration of justice steadily erodes.

Mechanisms of Accountability and Resistance

When domestic institutions fail, constitutional responsibility does not vanish. Article 1 of the Constitution declares that all power belongs to the people, while Article 3 imposes a duty on citizens to defend the constitutional order through lawful, non-violent means.

One avenue lies in supranational litigation. Articles 6(d) and 7(2) of the East African Community Treaty bind member states to principles of democracy, good governance, and the rule of law.

As established in James Katabazi v Secretary General of the EAC (2007), arising from the military siege of Uganda’s High Court, the East African Court of Justice retains jurisdiction where state conduct violates these foundational treaty obligations.

Because EACJ judges operate beyond the reach of domestic military influence, regional litigation can significantly raise the diplomatic and economic costs of unconstitutional conduct.

Furthermore, digital footprints have transformed accountability. In an era where state officials voluntarily document extrajudicial captures on social media, the traditional difficulty of proving abuse diminishes considerably.

These public admissions establish enduring records of conduct and command responsibility. As demonstrated by sanctions imposed on former Police chief Gen. Kale Kayihura in 2019, contemporary actors risk targeted financial and travel restrictions under frameworks such as the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act.

Ultimately, the gravest danger confronting Uganda is not a powerful general, but citizen apathy. Constitutional governance survives when traditional institutions, religious bodies, the Uganda Law Society, civil society organizations, and independent media build an unyielding social bloc in defense of legality and constitutionalism. Uganda’s future hinges on whether its citizens retain the courage to insist that no individual stands above the supreme law of the land.

The writer is a senior advocate and former Minister.

The post Sovereign lawlessness: The constitutional crisis confronting Uganda appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.