Mukulu Petitions High Court to Dismiss Charges, Citing Unlawful Extradition and Torture

REPORTED BY SPURB ERNEST

Mukulu, alongside Muhammed Matovu and Omara Abdullah Mutuka, contends that the offenses for which they are currently being tried were not listed in the extradition treaty Uganda presented to Tanzania when requesting their transfer. Mukulu was extradited following a July 15, 2015, request by the Ugandan government to the Tanzanian Attorney General.

The suspected commander of the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF), Jamilu Mukulu, has asked the International Crimes Division of the High Court in Kampala to nullify charges of terrorism, murder, and aggravated robbery against him and two others, arguing that they were illegally added after his extradition from Tanzania in 2015.

Through his lawyers, led by Medard Lubega Sseggona, Mukulu argues that the inclusion of additional charges outside the original consent renders the ongoing prosecution unlawful. His legal team argues that the charges were known to the Ugandan state and could have been included in the original extradition request. They say that Uganda lacks jurisdiction over some alleged offenses that reportedly occurred outside its territorial boundaries.

They further state that, apart from the murder of Sheikh Yunus Abubakar Mandanga, the other 14 charges now levied against Mukulu were not part of the original extradition agreement and are therefore unconstitutional under international extradition law. The applicants further allege they were subjected to torture while in state custody.

They claim they were held in non-gazetted detention facilities such as Nalufenya for over a year before being formally charged, in violation of their constitutional right to be presented in court within 48 hours of arrest. Court also heard that Mukulu suffers from chronic health issues, including lower back pain, a painful right knee, diabetes, and breathing difficulties—conditions he attributes to torture sustained in detention.

The court was told that one of the police officers, SSP Francis Olugu, beat a co-accused with a panga, and in another instance, a detainee was allegedly forced to drink urine. The applicants asked court for permission to undress and physically show the scars they claim are from torture.

Mukulu’s legal team is asking the court to declare the additional charges a nullity, stating that they go beyond what was approved under the extradition terms. They are also seeking a declaration that parading the suspects in the media and labelling them as terrorists violated their constitutional rights. In addition, they argue that the prolonged detention without being charged infringed on their rights to personal liberty, fair hearing, and the presumption of innocence.

Mukulu, who now refers to himself as Jamilu Alilabaki Kyagulanyi—a name he began using in solidarity with opposition politician Robert Kyagulanyi—wants the court to declare the ongoing trial null and void on the grounds that it violates both extradition treaties and his right to a fair trial.

In response, the Attorney General, represented by a State Attorney, opposed the application. He argued that the extradition issue should have been raised during the pretrial conferencing stage. However, one of the judges on the panel clarified that extradition proceedings involve both civil and criminal elements and can be challenged at any stage.

The State maintained that Mukulu and his co-accused are known members of the ADF and are facing serious charges, including crimes against humanity, terrorism, and murder. The Attorney General denied allegations of torture, stating that the suspects were held at Nalufenya under a court order and that their transfer to Luzira prison was requested by the State.

The government further argued that any alleged acts of torture by SSP Olugu were carried out in his official capacity, meaning liability falls on the Attorney General’s chambers. The Attorney General also referred to the pending Constitutional Court petition filed by MP Paul Akamba, which raises similar concerns about human rights violations during arrest. He suggested that the court should wait for the Constitutional Court’s ruling in that case before deciding on Mukulu’s application.

The State Attorney argued that the kind of suffering alleged by the applicants does not meet the threshold of torture as defined in law. He said that any suffering or humiliation must go beyond the inevitable discomfort associated with lawful detention and that Mukulu and his colleagues appear well enough to stand trial. The government has asked the court to dismiss the application with costs, arguing that the delay in trying the suspects has been due to the complexity of the investigations. It also maintained that the charges against Mukulu, Matovu, and Mutuka pose a threat to national security and that the trial should proceed without further delay.

Prosecutors allege that between 2011 and 2014, the 37 accused persons, under the command of Mukulu, acquired firearms and military training in neighboring countries and mobilized funding for operations motivated by political, religious, economic, and social agendas. Mukulu is accused of orchestrating the murders of Muslim cleric Sheikh Yunus Abubakar Mandanga and top Shia leader Dr. Muwaya. He is also linked to the attack on Bugiri Police Station that left two officers, Karim Tenywa and Muzamir Babale, dead. The group is believed to have been responsible for other deadly incidents, including the 1998 attack on Kichwamba Technical Institute in which more than 80 students were killed.

The suspects were arrested from various locations in Uganda and Tanzania between 2014 and 2015. In September 2019, the then pretrial judge Eva Luswata committed them for trial, but they have not yet been tried. For security reasons, media coverage of the proceedings remains restricted, with journalists barred from filming the judges or even mentioning their names. The ruling on Mukulu’s application will be delivered on a date yet to be announced.