This week, the Ugandan Parliament passed the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025, after a heated debate that exposed deep divisions over the military’s jurisdiction to try civilians and the role of the General Court Martial.
This comes months after the Supreme Court abolished the trial of civilians in the UPDF military tribunals in an appeal case by the Attorney General in AG V Michael Kabaziguruka on January 31, 2025. Is it the end of the beginning or the beginning of the end to civilian prosecution in military courts?
Many states have established military courts to deal with offences committed by members of the armed forces. However, during the last half of a century, international human rights bodies have been critical to military justice systems.
As a result of this international pressure, many states have been forced to a process of civilianization with some states abolishing military courts altogether, and others have retained separate military justice systems but introduced civilian elements like appointing civilian judges, civilian advocates, subordinating the prosecution service to civilian authorities, creating avenues of appeal to ordinary civilian courts among others. Could we see civilian elements in Uganda’s military courts apart from only allowing civilian advocates?
Since 2002, military courts in Uganda have prosecuted over 1000 civilians for offenses under the criminal code, such as murder and armed robbery. Many of these have been victims from the “Operation Wembley” a criminal crackdown operation in urban centers and suburbs, the disarmament campaigns in Karamoja, UPDF serving officers, and some political activists. Are there some credits to court Martials since their evolution under the NRM?
It should be remembered that, in 2006, Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled that military prosecutions of civilians were unlawful. This ruling, upheld on appeal by the Supreme Court in January 2009, was consistent with international law, which unambiguously holds that military tribunals are not competent courts to try civilians accused of peacetime criminal offenses. The 31st January, 2025, Supreme Court ruling in AG V Michael Kabaziguruka was the last nail on military courts in civilian trials.
It should be noted that, Article 93 of Uganda’s Constitution prohibits retrospective legislation. In this essence, Parliament is guilty for contempt of Court. Could the same provisions of the Bill subjecting Civilians to martial law be challenged and quashed by the Constitutional Court? Most likely! And where does this leave the rule of law? Could it be a rule by friendly institutions, or rule by law, as opposed to rule of law?
The international community has totally been against martial law over civilians because it does not meet international standards of competence, independence, and impartiality, but that military courts have routinely violated fundamental fair trial rights, such as the right to present a defense, the right against self-incrimination, and the prohibition on the use of evidence procured by torture. Have these been evident in UPDF Court Martials?
On April 18th 2025, Amnesty International termed Uganda’s Military justice as “the frontline of Uganda’s war on dissent” as Uganda gears up for the 2026 elections. In 2011, Human Rights Watch called for an immediate end to the transfer of civilians to military court jurisdictions. It urged Uganda to promptly establish a review process to identify all cases involving the wrongful detention and prosecution of civilians before military courts, and ensure each defendant can access an effective remedy. Does this make an impact on the new born law?
In conclusion, the trial of civilians in martial courts has been widely opposed domestically by courts of law in the Court of Appeal, and in the Supreme Court on Appeal by the Attorney General. It has been opposed by church leaders, for example Catholic Church Bishops and priests from the Church of Uganda. It has been opposed by civil society, and a number of ordinary citizens, in addition to the international community. Is it the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of civilian prosecution in military courts?
Richard Byamukama is a lawyer, and a security studies expert
