Gaza Mission: Gen Sejusa warns Uganda on potential entanglement in war crimes

Retired intelligence chief Gen David Sejusa has warned that Uganda risks being drawn into alleged war crimes if it deploys troops to Gaza without a clear political settlement and a defined mandate for the mission.

Sejusa raised the concerns after Parliament approved the deployment of a Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) contingent to Gaza under the US-backed International Stabilisation Force (ISF).

Parliament approved the mission on August 6, 2026, after Defence and Veteran Affairs minister Kiryowa Kiwanuka said the United States had asked President Yoweri Museveni to contribute troops. Uganda is one of the countries that have publicly committed to the proposed force.

However, Sejusa, a former coordinator of intelligence services, said the most serious questions concern the nature of the mission, its legal and ethical implications and whether there is a genuine peace for UPDF troops to keep.

“Perhaps the main questions are in regard to the ETHICAL, MORAL and EFFICACY of the Mission. IS IT PEACE ENFORCEMENT OR PEACEKEEPING? Parliament passed a RESOLUTION FOR PEACEKEEPING; what PEACE is in GAZA?” Sejusa said.

He questioned whether deploying Ugandan troops into a territory where Israeli military operations could continue would expose the UPDF to actions that may conflict with international humanitarian law.

“Is, therefore, a danger/A RISK OF COMPLICITY IN WAR CRIMES when we deploy troops in UN-MILITARISED ACTIVE CONFLICT AREA, without any CLEAR IMPLEMENTABLE POLITICAL FRAMEWORK? Where a BELLIGERENT STATE continues STRIKES on the OCCUPIED POPULATION?” Sejusa said.

His warning touches on one of the biggest uncertainties surrounding the proposed force: whether it would enter Gaza after a durable ceasefire and political settlement or operate while Israeli forces and Hamas remain locked in an unresolved military confrontation.

UN Security Council Resolution 2803, adopted on November 17, 2025, authorised a temporary International Stabilisation Force in Gaza. It allows participating forces to use measures necessary to fulfil their mandate but requires them to act in accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. The resolution passed with 13 votes in favour, while Russia and China abstained.

The framework envisages the ISF helping secure Gaza, supporting vetted Palestinian police and facilitating a transition as Israeli troops withdraw and Hamas disarms.

Sejusa argued that those conditions matter because Uganda could face difficult legal and operational questions if its soldiers deployed before the political and military conditions underpinning the mission were settled.

The wider Gaza conflict already carries serious international legal disputes. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant in November 2024 over alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel rejects the allegations and has challenged the court's jurisdiction.

South Africa has also brought a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice under the Genocide Convention. The court has issued provisional measures but has not made a final ruling on whether genocide occurred.

Sejusa's concerns have gained further weight after Israel rejected the latest US-backed plan that provides the political framework under which the stabilisation force is expected to operate.

On August 9, 2026, Netanyahu said Israel would not accept the Trump-backed 15-point Gaza plan in its current form. A major disagreement centres on the sequence of Hamas's disarmament and the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza. Netanyahu insists Hamas must fully disarm before Israel withdraws.

The dispute potentially complicates Uganda's planned deployment because the ISF is tied to the wider process involving Hamas disarmament, an Israeli withdrawal and the transfer of security responsibilities to an international force and Palestinian police.

It does not, however, mean that Uganda's deployment has formally been cancelled or suspended.

A Board of Peace official said on August 10 that Trump's plan remained operative despite Netanyahu's rejection and that discussions with Israel were continuing. The official said implementation would proceed in stages based on verified commitments.

The Israeli rejection therefore raises the possibility of delays rather than confirming that the UPDF mission has stalled. Uganda has also not announced a deployment date or the number of soldiers it intends to send.

Sejusa said he was not opposed to Uganda using foreign deployments to advance its strategic interests. He argued that international missions can strengthen military capacity, deepen partnerships and give Kampala diplomatic leverage.

He said Uganda's involvement in a US-led mission could also fit its long-standing policy of maintaining relationships with competing global powers.

“I absolutely support UGANDA'S NON-ALIGNED FOREIGN POLICY/multi-vector diplomacy. This DUAL ENGAGEMENT is at the core of OUR NON-ALIGNMENT POLICY. And I think the leadership has done well in its pursuit,” he said.

Sejusa also pointed to Uganda's growing relationship with BRICS countries, including Russia, while Kampala maintains strong security ties with the United States.

But he said such benefits should not override Uganda's ideological, political and long-term security interests, including its support for Palestinian self-determination.

For Sejusa, the central question is therefore not whether Uganda has the military experience to participate in the Gaza mission, but whether the political and legal environment would allow UPDF soldiers to operate as peacekeepers without becoming entangled in an active conflict.