UPDF Amendment Bill Sparks Debate Over Trial of Civilians At Military Courts
Legal experts are accusing the government of dishonesty in trying to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court in respect to the trail of civilians under military court.
A bill seeking to introduce changes to the UPDF Act 2005 is garnering controversy and has sparked a vigorous discussion about the potentially grave implications on human rights and rule of law in the country.
The UPDF (Amendment) Bill 2025 was tabled before Parliament on Tuesday by the Defence and Veteran Affairs Minister, Oboth Jacob Markson amidst murmurs by members of the opposition in Parliament.
The Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among referred the Bill to the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee. She tasked the chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee to Chair the process of considering the bill. “I expect the committee to handle this. And it should be resolved before the end of the fourth session,” directed Anita Among.
Sources indicate that the bill could get back to the floor of Parliament on Thursday and it may not be subjects to usual scrutiny by interested parties.
As MPS begun scrutinizing the Bill, it emerged that some of the items listed as part of the military stores included black shoes. Rubabo MP, Namanya Naboth said that would end up having whoever wears black shoes to the military courts.
Proponents of the Bill say the amendments will streamline the structures and composition of the defence forces, establish a medical board and to provide for the definition of a service offence, court martial, military court, reserve force, and provide for restructuring and re-establishment of court martial in the Defence Force.
The Minister of Defence, Jacob Oboth Oboth was appearing before the committee chaired by Stephen Baka Mugabi.
The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs (MODVA), Rosette Byengoma told MPS that the principals of the Bill were approved in November 2022.
But critics warned that the bill if passed into law will reintroduce the trial of civilians at the military courts. They argue that the government is in effect reintroducing section that had been struck of the UPDF Act 2005 by the Supreme Court judges.
They say Parliament would be acting contrary to article 92 of the constitution that bar parliament from enacting legislations to vary a decision of the courts.
Human Rights Lawyer, Nicholas Opiyo explains that in bring the amendments, the only duty the government had was to put into law what the Supreme Court had ordered or directed. “Anything that is different materially and substantially would be a violation of not just the orders of Supreme Court but also article 92 of the constitution,” argues Opiyo.
On Friday, 31 January 2025, the Supreme Court delivered a judgement nullifying with immediate effect, prosecution of all civilians in the General Court Martial and military courts as unconstitutional.
The court ordered immediate cession of trials of civilians in the military courts and the transfer of all the cases to the civilian court. The court also ordered the halt of trial of soldiers who were being charged of offences over which civilian courts have jurisdiction.
Opiyo says the Attorney General and the government have not complied with the ruing and the directive of the court.
The Court however said civilians can be tried under the military under exceptional circumstances. Opiyo argues that exceptional cases are not exception that the government can provide.
“They are extraordinary or out extraordinary circumstances. What the Bill does is they borrow the word of the Supreme Court. And instead of providing for exceptional circumstances as per the Court, they are providing for exceptions,” said Opiyo.
“And exceptional circumstances must be read to mean extraordinary. And the court gave an example of soldiers deployed in a foreign country, and offences being committed by civilian staff of that unit. And in places where Ugandan have no jurisdiction,” he added.
The government says the Bill seeks to implement the Supreme Court decision in constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021, Attorney General vs Hon. Micheal A. Kabaziguruka by restructuring and re-establishing the courts martial in the Defence Forces and prescribing their jurisdiction.
The Bill provides for the membership and the qualifications of the chairpersons of the courts martial and for the independence of the courts martial and appeals from the courts martial.
It further stipulates the exceptional circumstances under which civilians may be tied by the courts martial.
And it seeks to establish a Military Courts Department within the Defence Forces and a disciplinary unit within the Defence Forces which shall be responsible for the discipline of the members of the Military Court Department.
When enacted, it will prescribe the arms and ammunition which are the monopoly of the Defence Forces and the classified store of the Defence Forces.
Leader of the Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi said the UPDF (Amendment) Bill clearly contravenes the Constitution.
“Bad laws affect everybody, regardless of one’s political persuasions. No one is safe in a sinking boat, not even our colleagues in NRM who naively think they are shielded,” said Ssenyonyi at the time the Bill was being tabled in parliament.
He has held that the amendments are akin to old wine in in new bottles. Old wine in a new bottle” originates from a metaphor used by Jesus in the Bible, emphasizing the need for new vessels to hold new wine.
There is fear that the government can try the suspects that were then being tried under the military court one Parliament enact the law. The Supreme Court ordered that they should be released but many still languish in prisons.
Justice and Constitution Affairs Minister, Norbert Mao has insisted that military courts are still necessary.
“The courts Martials are not a parallel system. It is a special court. The way you have the labor courts and industrial courts. You could talk about other quasi-judicial bodies. Most companies even parastatals have disciplinary Committees” Mao told Journalists at Parliament.
He said the Bill will put in place a uniform code of military justice. “Which I think perhaps Uganda should go. And in case, the UPDF has a code of conduct. And when you violate the code of conduct you go to the court martial. I don’t think anybody would say the Supreme Court wanted to abolish the Court martial. You can abolish it and see whether there will be order in this country” he said.
“Because once the soldiers who carry fire arms know that there is no court martial there will be chaos. So we need a court martial”
Medard Sseggona (NUP, Busiro County East), one of the lawyers that argued the Michael Kabaziguruka petition at the Supreme Court says the Bill is conspiracy between some men and women against the country.
“They are plotting against the country in the interest of one person and probably one family. President Museveni has always had contempt for institutions. Including the judiciary. He has never implemented their decisions. Except where they declare that he is a winner,” said Sseggona.
