By Karim Were | Cybernewsug
Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces says the operation will target violent criminals, but his warning that suspects will not be taken to court has raised questions about due process, military powers and civilian rights.
KAMPALA, October 17, 2026 — Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, has announced a special security operation dubbed Operation Kisasi targeting people accused of murder, robbery and rape, declaring that the campaign will continue until those responsible for violent crimes have been dealt with.
In a series of social media posts reported on Saturday, Muhoozi said the operation would target individuals accused of attacking innocent Ugandans and compared the proposed campaign to the military operations against the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), the rebel group that waged a prolonged insurgency in northern Uganda.
The most controversial part of his announcement was his statement that security forces would not waste time taking suspects to court.
“We are going to start a special operation against the killers/robbers/rapists of innocent citizens in Uganda. We won’t waste time taking them to court. We will deal with them like we did LRA,” Muhoozi wrote, according to Watchdog Uganda and The Investigator News. <Cite refs={[“turn949025search0″,”turn949025search3”]}/>
The announcement signals a tough public stance against violent crime at a time when Ugandans continue to demand stronger protection against murder, armed robbery and sexual violence.
However, the language used by the army chief has also raised questions about how the proposed operation will distinguish between people suspected of committing crimes and individuals whose guilt has been established through a court process.
As of Saturday, the reports did not provide comprehensive details about the operation’s geographical coverage, operational timeline, participating units or rules governing the use of force.
What is Operation Kisasi?
According to reports published on October 17, Muhoozi announced the operation through posts on his X account, describing it as a campaign against people accused of committing serious crimes against Ugandan citizens.
In one of the posts quoted by Watchdog Uganda, he declared: “We have launched ‘Operation Kisasi’ against criminals in the country. It will not end until we finish them.
The announcement was followed by a more detailed statement identifying murder, robbery and rape as the principal offences the operation would target.
Muhoozi also referred to the LRA campaign, invoking the military’s past efforts to pursue and weaken the rebel group led by Joseph Kony.
The choice of comparison suggests an approach focused on forceful action against people considered serious security threats. However, the announcement did not establish whether Operation Kisasi would be conducted primarily by the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), in cooperation with the Uganda Police Force, or through a joint security arrangement.
The precise meaning of the operation’s name, its command structure and the procedures for identifying suspects also require clarification from the military.
Without further information, it would be premature to conclude that the announcement establishes a formal shoot-to-kill policy or that every person suspected of a violent crime will be subjected to lethal force.
Nevertheless, the statement about bypassing the courts has created an important public-interest question about how the operation will be implemented.
Why the LRA comparison matters
The Lord’s Resistance Army was an armed rebel organisation responsible for years of violence in northern Uganda and parts of neighbouring countries.
Led by Joseph Kony, the group became notorious for attacks on communities, killings, abductions and the recruitment of children into its ranks.
The insurgency forced many civilians from their homes and caused widespread disruption to education, livelihoods and community life.
The UPDF conducted extensive military campaigns against the group, including operations that pursued LRA fighters beyond Uganda’s borders.
Although the rebellion was significantly weakened, Kony has not been captured, and remnants of the group have continued to operate in parts of Central Africa.
Muhoozi’s reference to the LRA therefore invokes a period in which Uganda’s military conducted prolonged counter-insurgency operations against an armed organisation.
However, the circumstances surrounding an insurgency are different from those involved in ordinary criminal investigations.
An armed rebel force operating in a conflict presents different operational and legal considerations from a person accused of robbery, murder or rape in a civilian community.
The comparison consequently raises questions about what methods the authorities intend to employ against suspected criminals and how those methods will comply with the law.
The government has a responsibility to protect citizens from violent offenders. At the same time, the use of military force in civilian settings requires clear legal authority, accountability and safeguards against abuses.
The controversy over taking suspects to court
Muhoozi’s statement that security forces would not waste time taking suspects to court is the most consequential aspect of the announcement.
Under Uganda’s constitutional framework, people accused of crimes are entitled to due process, including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty according to law.
This principle means that allegations, intelligence reports or accusations by members of the public cannot, by themselves, establish criminal guilt.
Investigators must establish the facts surrounding an alleged offence, gather admissible evidence and follow the procedures required by law. Prosecutors and courts then determine criminal responsibility through the applicable judicial process.
The distinction is particularly important in cases involving murder, robbery and rape, where accusations can have devastating consequences for both victims and suspects.
Survivors of sexual violence and families affected by murder deserve effective investigations and access to justice. Arresting the wrong person, using unlawful force or failing to preserve evidence can undermine those objectives.
A security operation can pursue dangerous suspects while still respecting the legal requirements governing arrest, detention, investigation and prosecution.
Muhoozi’s reported comments have therefore left unanswered questions about whether Operation Kisasi will prioritise arrests and prosecutions, how the military will coordinate with civilian law-enforcement agencies and what safeguards will apply when officers encounter suspected offenders.
The military has not, in the reports reviewed for this article, provided detailed operational guidance addressing those questions.
Public safety and demands for tougher action
Violent crime remains a serious concern for communities that experience killings, robberies and sexual assaults.
When offenders evade arrest or cases take a long time to resolve, victims and residents can lose confidence in the institutions responsible for protecting them.
A visible security response can reassure communities that the authorities are taking their concerns seriously.
However, a sustainable response to violent crime requires more than forceful declarations. It depends on reliable intelligence, competent investigations, effective prosecution, protection for witnesses and public confidence in the justice system.
For example, robbery investigations may require the recovery of stolen property, forensic examination, identification of suspects and the tracing of weapons or other evidence.
Sexual-offence investigations can require sensitive handling of survivors, medical evidence, witness protection and procedures that minimise further trauma.
Murder investigations similarly depend on preserving crime scenes, establishing the cause of death and collecting evidence that can withstand scrutiny in court.
These processes are essential to securing convictions and preventing innocent people from being punished for crimes they did not commit.
A campaign that produces arrests without effective investigations may fail to deliver lasting justice. Likewise, the unlawful use of force could create additional grievances and weaken public trust.
Operation Kisasi’s effectiveness will therefore depend on the methods used, the evidence gathered and the extent to which the operation improves safety while complying with the law.
The role of the military and police
Uganda’s security system involves several institutions with different responsibilities.
The Uganda Police Force has a central role in preventing and investigating ordinary crime, arresting suspects and preparing cases for prosecution. The UPDF is primarily responsible for defending the country and addressing threats within its military mandate.
Military personnel may support domestic security operations under applicable legal arrangements, but the precise responsibilities of each agency remain important.
If Operation Kisasi involves military personnel pursuing suspected civilian offenders, the public will need clarity about the legal basis for their deployment, their coordination with police investigators and the procedures governing arrests and detention.
Such clarity would help establish accountability and reassure citizens that the operation is intended to improve public safety rather than replace ordinary criminal justice procedures.
The announcement has not, in the reports reviewed, provided a full explanation of these arrangements.
It is also unclear which geographical areas will be prioritised, whether the operation will target specific criminal networks or whether it will cover suspected offenders nationwide.
Those details will be important in assessing the initiative’s scope and its potential effect on communities.
The importance of protecting victims and suspects
A strong response to violent crime should place victims at the centre of the justice process while protecting the legal rights of accused persons.
Families affected by murder need credible investigations and a fair opportunity to see those responsible held accountable.
Survivors of rape need access to medical care, psychological support, confidential reporting mechanisms and a justice system that treats their cases seriously.
People affected by robbery need protection, investigation of their complaints and recovery of stolen property where possible.
These needs are not incompatible with the rights of suspects.
The presumption of innocence does not prevent security agencies from arresting people where the law permits it. Nor does it prevent authorities from using necessary and proportionate force to protect lives or respond to an immediate threat.
It does, however, distinguish lawful enforcement from punishment imposed without a judicial determination.
That distinction matters because the authority to determine guilt and impose criminal punishment is governed by law, not by the severity of an accusation or the anger it generates.
Clear rules, proper supervision and independent accountability mechanisms can help security agencies pursue dangerous offenders without creating additional risks for innocent citizens.
What remains unclear
Although Muhoozi’s announcement has attracted attention, several practical questions remain unanswered.
The available reports do not establish the full operational plan, the units that will participate, the intended duration of the campaign or the criteria that will determine which suspects are targeted.
They also do not provide a detailed explanation of the relationship between Operation Kisasi and existing police-led crime-prevention and investigation programmes.
Most importantly, the military has yet to provide publicly documented operational details clarifying how the statement about not taking suspects to court should be understood within Uganda’s legal framework.
An official explanation would help distinguish a forceful political or security warning from an operational directive authorising specific actions.
It would also help the public assess whether the initiative is intended to improve investigations and arrests, dismantle violent criminal networks or introduce a different approach to dealing with suspected offenders.
The distinction is essential because the success of a security operation cannot be measured solely by the number of people detained or the force used against suspected criminals.
It should also be assessed by its effect on crime, public safety, successful prosecutions and compliance with the law.
Conclusion
Operation Kisasi represents a hardline announcement by Uganda’s military chief against people accused of murder, robbery and rape. Muhoozi’s comparison with the LRA campaign signals his determination to confront violent crime, but his remarks about bypassing the courts have raised questions that require clarification.
Ugandans have a legitimate expectation that the state will protect them from violent offenders and ensure that victims receive justice. Meeting that responsibility requires effective security operations, reliable investigations and accountability for wrongdoing.
The central test for Operation Kisasi will be whether it can make communities safer while respecting the legal protections that apply to every person in Uganda.
A decisive response to crime and respect for due process are not mutually exclusive. Both are necessary for lasting public security and confidence in the rule of law.
Source:
