Kampala — Despite persistent allegations of human rights abuses by Ugandan security agencies and repeated calls for international accountability, President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba have not been summoned by the International Criminal Court (ICC), raising questions among sections of the public and civil society.
Uganda is a State Party to the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, having ratified it in 2002. The court therefore has jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed on Ugandan territory or by Ugandan nationals. However, legal experts note that jurisdiction alone does not automatically lead to prosecutions.
The ICC operates on the principle of complementarity, meaning it can only intervene when national authorities are unwilling or unable genuinely to investigate or prosecute alleged crimes. Ugandan authorities have consistently argued that alleged abuses by security forces are handled through domestic mechanisms, including military courts and internal disciplinary processes. While human rights organisations have questioned the effectiveness of these mechanisms, their existence complicates efforts to trigger ICC intervention.
Following the disputed 2021 general elections, opposition leader Robert Kyagulanyi Ssentamu, popularly known as Bobi Wine, submitted a petition and supporting documentation to the Office of the ICC Prosecutor in The Hague. The submission accused President Museveni, Gen Muhoozi and other senior security officials of responsibility for alleged crimes against humanity, including killings, torture, enforced disappearances and persecution of political opponents.
Museveni Blames Low Voter Turnout on Opposition Intimidation
However, legal analysts stress that individuals cannot directly file cases at the ICC. Bobi Wine’s action constituted a submission of information under Article 15 of the Rome Statute, requesting the Prosecutor to consider opening a preliminary examination into the situation in Uganda. Such submissions do not amount to indictments, summonses or formal charges and are assessed solely at the discretion of the Prosecutor.
To date, the ICC has not announced the opening of a full investigation into post-election violence or alleged abuses involving Ugandan state actors. No arrest warrants or summonses have been issued against President Museveni, Gen Muhoozi or other officials named in the submission.
Establishing criminal responsibility for senior leaders presents additional legal hurdles. Prosecutors must demonstrate either direct involvement in crimes or command responsibility — evidence that a leader knew, or should have known, that subordinates were committing international crimes and failed to prevent or punish them. This requires extensive documentation, insider testimony and access to evidence, which is often difficult to obtain without state cooperation.
Gen Muhoozi, in particular, is not a head of state and would only fall within the ICC’s focus if prosecutors could directly link him, in his capacity as a military commander, to crimes meeting the court’s high legal threshold. Controversial public statements, analysts note, do not in themselves constitute crimes under the Rome Statute unless directly connected to mass atrocities.
Political realities also shape ICC action. Although the court is legally independent, it relies on member states to arrest suspects, provide evidence and facilitate investigations. Past cases, including that of former Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, have shown the difficulty of pursuing sitting leaders who retain firm control over state institutions.
Uganda’s role as a regional security partner and troop-contributing country to international peacekeeping missions has further complicated perceptions of accountability, with critics arguing that geopolitical considerations influence which situations advance at the ICC. The court has repeatedly denied accusations of selective justice.
Human rights groups continue to call for independent international investigations into alleged abuses linked to elections, protests and security operations in Uganda. However, without a formal referral by the Ugandan government or the United Nations Security Council, or a decision by the ICC Prosecutor to open a full investigation, the matter remains at the level of preliminary assessment.
Legal experts caution that the absence of ICC action should not be interpreted as a legal exoneration. Rather, it reflects the court’s high evidentiary standards, its reliance on state cooperation and the complex intersection of international law and global politics.
As debate over accountability persists, attention has increasingly shifted toward domestic reforms and regional human rights mechanisms, which some observers argue may offer more immediate avenues for justice than the slow and highly selective processes of international criminal prosecution.
ALSO READ: Museveni Blames Low Voter Turnout on Opposition Intimidation
