MPs Recommend Trial of Civilians In Military Courts
In their report presented to parliament on Tuesday, the majority of the MPs who wholly belong to the ruling National Resistance Movement agreed to the amendment with slight adjustments.
The majority of Members of Parliament on the joint committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Defence and Internal Affairs have recommended the amendment of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Act 2005 to, among others, allow for the trial of civilians in military courts.
The Supreme Court on January 31 this year had ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional.
This ruling that rubbed President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni the wrong way led to the withdrawal of the UPDF amendment bill that had already been tabled in parliament in December last year to be withdrawn. In the new amendments, the trial of civilians was reintroduced, and last week, this bill was sent to the two committees for scrutiny.
In their report presented to parliament on Tuesday, the majority of the MPs who wholly belong to the ruling National Resistance Movement agreed to the amendment with slight adjustments.
According to the report, although there were divergent opinions on what exactly the Supreme Court said in regards to trial of civilians in the military courts, it concluded that this trial can occur, albeit in exceptional circumstances for as long as there are safeguards on fairness.
“The Committee acknowledges that military trials apply to officers and personnel within the defence forces, but they also address elements of national security. As a result, civilians can engage in actions that usually impact national security, which are typically reserved for those under military law. The reasoning for establishing offences in the UPDF Act that hold civilians criminally liable is to safeguard national security,” the committee noted.
The committee, however, noted that the exceptional circumstances that the Supreme Court and the bill talk about were not properly defined and hence are ripe for abuse. “The Committee reviewed the exceptional circumstances outlined in the Bill and determined that certain aspects require revision to align with the legality principle.
Specifically, the Committee identifies that paragraph (d), which allows the trial of civilians in military courts for aiding and abetting individuals subject to military law in committing serious crimes such as murder, aggravated robbery, intent to murder, kidnapping, treason, misprision of treason, or cattle rustling,” needs
adjustment since it fails to specify the elements of these offences. This omission compromises the legality principle defined in…the Constitution,” the report notes in part.
The Committee also observed that although the Bill also provides for the legal qualification of the members of the court and the setting up of the legal department, these are not sufficient to guarantee judicial independence. “The Committee noted that the roles and functions of the Military Court Department are vague, leaving gaps in oversight and accountability intended to oversee military courts, the structure risks undermining judicial independence.
The Military Court Department includes the head of the General Court Martial as chair, along with a military prosecutor, defence counsel, and chairpersons of military courts. This overlap of judicial and prosecutorial roles is seen as a violation of natural justice principles. It is the right to a fair hearing by compromising the impartiality of the court,” the committee noted.
The Committee also took exception to the clause that allows the Chief of Defence Forces to confer a temporary rank to the chairperson of the Court Martial equal to that of the defendant if he/she was of a higher rank. “While intended to maintain order, this mechanism may introduce bureaucratic delays and allow manipulation of the justice process.
For instance, the Chief of Defence Forces could delay rank assignment, impeding the prosecution of senior officers. The temporary rank with its associated privileges may also incentivize judicial officers to prolong proceedings to retain benefits, compromising timely and impartial justice,” the committee noted.
The committee also recommended that all presiding officers of the Courts Martial should be given a five-year renewable term rather than the three years as proposed by the bill.
They also want the Judicial Service Commission to play a bigger role than that proposed by the bill. Currently, all members are appointed by the High Command from a list it generates in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission (ISC).
This system grants the High Command broad powers to appoint members for specific trials, raising serious doubts about the members’ independence and vulnerability to external influence.
The idea of consulting the JSC does not explicitly define the role of the JSC in the process of appointment.The Committee argues that the JSC should be given a stronger role to vet presiding officers who wield judicial power,” the report notes.
Meanwhile, there are two minority reports; one authored by Erute South MP Jonathan Odur and the other signed by 21 MPs, although signed by 13 led by Busiro East MP Medard Lubega Sseggona. In Odur’s minority report, he notes that the entire bill is riddled with illegalities, right from the way it was introduced to parliament. “The minority finds that parliament proceeding to consider the clauses of the UPDF Bill 2025 touching the subject matter of trial of civilians in court martial undermines the core tenets of the rule of law and doctrine of mutual respect for separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary,” Odur’s report notes.
It cautions members of parliament from giving such broad powers to the President because they don’t know who it will be even as early as 2026.
“Let it sink in our minds that at any one point soon in our lifetime, Uganda will have another President other than H.E. Museveni. The next President, as per the law, shall be the Commander in Chief (Boss of the Court Martial).
This House may have already noticed the following names, in no particular order of chances being discussed in the public domain as potential future Presidents starting 2026 and beyond; Hon. Akena Jimmy James Michael Obote, Hon. Kyagulanyi Sentamu Robert, Hon. Amuriat Oboi Patrick, Gen. Kainerugaba Muhoozi, Gen Mugisha Muntu Greggory, Hon. Nobert Moa, Rt. Hon Anita Among Annet, Col (Rtd) Dr. Warren Kizza Besigye, Hon. Nandala Mafabi Nathan, etc. Please reflect carefully on each one of them; their soberness, fidelity to the law, ideology, actions, sentiments, service record, etc., and imagine what each one of them is capable of using such provisions in the Bill,” Odur noted.
On the other hand, the other minority report raises eight reasons why it objects to the bill. These include; contravention of the constitution, illegality in military trials, offending the doctrine of separation of powers, lack of public participation, unconstitutional expansion of Military
Court jurisdiction; constitutional limitations on Parliament’s powers; lack of independence and impartiality of the courts martial and non compliance with judicial advisory orders of the Supreme Court.
“The minority unanimously think that the General Court Martial and other military courts do not have constitutional jurisdiction to try civilians or adjudicate non disciplinary criminal offences even if committed by members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces under article 210 of the 1995 Constitution, Parliament’s power to legislate for military courts is strictly confined to matters of discipline and removal of UPDF members. Military courts are therefore internal disciplinary bodies, not general criminal courts, and cannot override the constitutional mandate that all Criminal justice, including fair trial rights under Articles 28 and 44, lies exclusively with the ordinary Courts of Judicature,” the minority report reads in part.
By the time of filing this report, parliament was still debating this bill. It is expected to pass given that it has the support of the majority of NRM members.
