The Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) has formally denied abducting, unlawfully detaining or holding National Unity Platform (NUP) Deputy President for Buganda and former Butambala MP Muwanga Kivumbi, telling the High Court that the opposition politician “is not and has never been” in the custody of the military.
The position is contained in an affidavit sworn by Lt Col Edgar Musasizi, the Director Civil Affairs at the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs Headquarters, Mbuya, in response to a habeas corpus application filed before the High Court in Kampala.
The application, Miscellaneous Cause No. HCT-00-CV-MC-0187 of 2026, names Kivumbi as the applicant and the Chief of Defence Forces, Inspector General of Police and Attorney General as respondents.
Kivumbi’s application seeks an order requiring the authorities to produce him before court and explain the circumstances surrounding his alleged detention.
In the affidavit dated July 24, 2026, Lt Col Musasizi gives the UPDF’s formal response to allegations that its personnel abducted or are holding Kivumbi.
“I categorically deny that officers of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces abducted or unlawfully detained the Applicant as alleged,” Musasizi states.
The military officer also challenges the basis upon which Kivumbi’s supporters have linked the alleged incident to the UPDF.
“The deponent has not disclosed the basis upon which he concluded that the persons allegedly involved were officers of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, nor has he exhibited any material linking the Respondents to the alleged incident,” the affidavit states.
UPDF checks all its detention facilities
Musasizi says the military conducted checks of its detention facilities before making its position known to court.
“I have personally cross checked with all gazetted detention facilities under the control of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces,” he states.
The result, according to the affidavit, was categorical.
“I confirm that the Applicant is not and has never been in the custody of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces at any material time,” Musasizi says.
The UPDF also rejects the allegation that Kivumbi is being held incommunicado under its control.
“I know that the allegation that the Applicant is being held incommunicado is unsupported by any evidence demonstrating that he is in the custody or control of any of the 1st Respondent,” Musasizi states.
The military further argues that Kivumbi has not produced evidence linking the UPDF to his alleged detention.
“I know that the Applicant has not provided any proof whatsoever, whether documentary, testimonial or otherwise, demonstrating that the 1st Respondent has him in his custody as is required for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum,” the officer states.
UPDF says allegations are intended to tarnish its reputation
Musasizi also takes issue with the allegations contained in the affidavit supporting Kivumbi’s application.
“The Deponent of the supporting Affidavit intends to tarnish the hard earned good name and the reputation of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces and shall be put to strict proof of his allegations,” he states.
The military does not concede any of the allegations made in the supporting affidavit.
“I make no admission to any of the allegations contained in the said affidavit and the Applicant shall be put to strict proof thereof,” Musasizi says.
He acknowledges that Kivumbi had previously been granted bail by the High Court in criminal proceedings pending before it.
“I am aware that the Applicant was granted bail by the High Court in criminal proceedings pending before that Court,” Musasizi states.
But the military rejects any suggestion that Kivumbi was subsequently taken into its custody.
UPDF challenges habeas corpus application
Musasizi argues that the habeas corpus application cannot succeed without credible evidence demonstrating that Kivumbi is being unlawfully detained by the UPDF.
“I know that a writ of habeas corpus is available only where there is credible evidence that the person on whose behalf the application is made is being unlawfully detained by the 1st Respondent,” he states.
“I also know that in the absence of such evidence, the application cannot stand.”
The military officer describes the application as fundamentally defective.
“I know that the present application is misconceived, devoid of merit and an abuse of the process of Court,” Musasizi states.
He asks the High Court to reject the application and award costs.
“I swear this affidavit in reply to and in opposition to the application for a writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum and pray that the application be dismissed with costs,” he states.
What the UPDF has told court
The affidavit puts the UPDF’s position in stark terms.
The military denies abducting Kivumbi.
It denies unlawfully detaining him.
It says he is not and has never been in its custody at any material time.
And Lt Col Musasizi says he personally cross-checked all gazetted detention facilities under UPDF control before making that declaration to court.
The affidavit was sworn in Kampala on July 24, 2026, before Alex Ganda, an advocate, Commissioner for Oaths and Notary Public.
It was drawn and filed by the Attorney General’s Chambers at the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.
The military’s position therefore leaves the court proceedings with a central unresolved question: if Kivumbi is not in UPDF custody, as the military insists, where is the former Butambala MP?
Rubongoya: “WHERE IS HON. MUWANGA KIVUMBI?”
The UPDF’s affidavit has not ended the controversy surrounding Kivumbi’s whereabouts.
David Lewis Rubongoya, Secretary General of the National Unity Platform, said the military’s affidavit amounts to another denial by a security agency following an earlier denial by police.
“The military has also filed an affidavit denying knowledge of the whereabouts of Hon. Muwanga Kivumbi!” Rubongoya said.
“They state that they did not abduct him and that he’s not under their custody. This, after the police also denied knowledge of his whereabouts.”
Rubongoya questioned the credibility of such denials, pointing to what he described as previous cases involving security agencies.
“Of course we’ve seen these kinds of denials before, including in the case of the Kenyans and that of the two National Unity Platform Deputy Presidents,” he said.
Rubongoya alleged that, in those cases, security officials denied having the individuals in their custody before subsequently producing them.
“They lied on oath that they didn’t have them, only to produce them days or weeks later,” he said.
He added a legal warning about the consequences of giving false evidence under oath.
“(Under normal times, officers who lie on oath would be held liable for perjury.)”
Rubongoya said his hope was that Kivumbi would soon be produced, bringing an end to the uncertainty affecting his family and friends.
“Hopefully they will soon preduce Hon. Kivumbi and take away the incredible pain that has engulfed his family and friends,” he said.
He ended with a question that has now become the central issue surrounding the opposition politician’s whereabouts: “WHERE IS HON. MUWANGA KIVUMBI?”
