The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) produced a wayward article written by Wycliffe Muia and titled, “Uganda’s Special Forces Command: The elite unit with a license to kill”, in their recent publication. This is not an exposé, but it is a relic of the colonial imagination, written with the same imperial arrogance that once justified the occupation of African lands. Beneath its sensationalism lies a familiar condescension; the belief that African nations cannot be trusted with power, professionalism, creativity, or sovereignty unless supervised by their former masters.
The piece is not journalism; it is a moral judgment — a sermon from those who still believe that Africans are primitive, unpatriotic, and incapable of protecting their own citizens unless they follow the example of the Western world.
Flawed premise built on colonial assumptions
At the heart of the BBC’s argument is an astonishing idea that Uganda’s possession of a highly trained, protective military unit is somehow sinister. That premise would be laughable if it were not so offensive.
Every serious nation maintains an elite military unit. Britain has the SAS and SBS; the United States has Delta Force and the Navy SEALs; France has the GIGN; and Israel has Sayeret Matkal. Why, then, is Uganda’s Special Forces Command (SFC) treated as an anomaly? The answer is simple, though uncomfortable: the BBC still struggles to accept the emergence of a confident and capable African nation defining its own security priorities without seeking approval from former imperial powers.
Uganda is not a colony to be examined, managed, or “secured” by outsiders. It is a sovereign republic whose Constitution entrusts the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF), including the SFC, with the duty of protecting national sovereignty and ensuring regional stability.
Facts the BBC refused to tell


The BBC’s narrative conveniently ignores the SFC’s proven history of discipline, courage, and regional leadership. Far from being a “private army,” the SFC operates as an integral component of the UPDF, constitutionally empowered to execute counter-terrorism missions, special operations, and the protection of key national leaders' duties identical to those performed by elite forces worldwide.


Consider just a few examples:



In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)underOperation Shujaa, the SFC, working alongside the Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC), successfully weakened the ADF/ISCAP terrorist network responsible for massacres in eastern Congo. This mission was formally requested by the DRC government; it was an international counter-terrorism effort, not an act of intrusion.
In Somaliafor nearly two decades, Ugandan forces, often spearheaded by SFC units, have held the frontlines of the African Union Mission (AMISOM, now ATMIS) against Al-Shabaab. Many of these brave soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice, bringing stability to a region the world had long neglected.
In South Sudanduring the crises of 2013 and 2016, Ugandan troops, including the SFC, evacuated thousands of civilians and secured vital infrastructure, preventing the total collapse of Juba. To this day, the UPDF remains in South Sudan, helping that fragile nation restore and maintain security.
Regional Anti-LRA Operations
The SFC took part in joint African Union missions that dismantled Joseph Kony’s terror network and rescued abducted women and children across the Central African Republic.
These are the true stories of Uganda’s Special Forces Command; disciplined professionals advancing African security, not marauders haunting colonial imaginations.
When Africa defends itself, it is called “militarization.”
The BBC’s editorial framing reveals a persistent double standard:When Western powers project force across the globe, it is described as “counter-terrorism.”But when an African nation acts decisively to protect its citizens, it becomes “militarization.”
This bias is not analytical; it is a historical echo from a time when Africans were expected to be defended, not to defend themselves. That mindset continues to shape much of the Western media’s perspective whenever an African government dares to act independently.
Uganda, however, is no longer a pupil in the imperial classroom. We do not need the BBC’s moral instruction to understand how to protect our homeland.
SFC: A Symbol of Sovereignty, Not Subservience
The SFC’s existence is no secret. Its structure and mandate are public. Its men and women are well-trained, disciplined, and battle-tested. They stand as a symbol of the modern Ugandan state: confident, capable, and self-reliant.
To reduce Uganda’s security institutions to caricatures of tyranny is to erase decades of national institution-building and sacrifice. It is also an insult to the families of soldiers who have died in Somalia, Congo, and elsewhere, not in pursuit of conquest, but in the service of peace.
Uganda’s security forces are accountable to Ugandan law, Ugandan institutions, and the Ugandan people, not to the lingering nostalgia of colonial powers.
A Call for Journalism Beyond Empire
If the BBC wishes to remain relevant in Africa, it must abandon the posture of a colonial lecturer. True journalism requires context, balance, and humility, not the lazy reflex that assumes any African in uniform must be a villain.
The world has moved on. The empire has fallen. Uganda has not only learned to stand on its own feet but has also helped other nations do the same.
The Special Forces Command embodies that spirit of self-determination; a force forged in the real challenges of African security, not the fantasies of colonial nostalgia.
It deserves respect, not vilification.
Uganda will never apologize for defending itself and it will never again seek permission from former imperial rulers to stand tall as a sovereign African power.
The writer is the Acting Executive Director, Uganda Media Centre.