In a bold move that challenges the judiciary’s authority, President Yoweri Museveni’s administration is pushing for a new law to permit the trial of civilians in military courts, even after the Supreme Court declared such practices unconstitutional.
This development has sparked outrage among opposition leaders, human rights organizations, and legal experts, who view it as a deliberate attempt to silence dissent and undermine judicial independence.
On 31 January 2025, Uganda’s Supreme Court unanimously ruled that military courts lack the jurisdiction to try civilians, emphasizing that such trials violate constitutional guarantees of a fair trial.
Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo likened the practice to allowing an unqualified person to perform surgery, stating, “Even though army judges don’t have any legal qualifications, they try everything and anything including treason”
The court ordered the transfer of all pending civilian cases from military tribunals to civilian courts.
Despite this ruling, President Museveni has expressed strong opposition. In a statement issued shortly after the decision, he dismissed the court’s judgment as “misguided,” arguing that Uganda is governed by the people through parliamentary legislation and constitutional amendments, not by judges. He directed the Attorney General to draft constitutional amendments allowing civilians, particularly those found in possession of illegal firearms, to be tried in military courts.
Human rights organizations have condemned the government’s actions. Human Rights Watch called the Supreme Court’s decision a “major step to protect the right to a fair trial in Uganda,” and urged the government to ensure justice for those wrongly convicted under military trials.
Amnesty International echoed these concerns, emphasizing the need for reforms to uphold constitutional rights.
Opposition leaders have also voiced their criticism. Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP), welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating, “We welcome today’s Supreme Court ruling stopping the trial of civilians by the military courts martial. For years, we have condemned these inherently unfair trials, which have been a key weapon of persecution wielded by the regime against its opponents.”
The proposed law has raised concerns among legal experts. Critics argue that it would erode the independence of the judiciary and set a dangerous precedent for the rule of law in Uganda. They warn that allowing civilians to be tried in military courts undermines constitutional protections and could lead to politically motivated prosecutions.
As the government moves forward with its plan, the nation watches closely. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for Uganda’s democratic institutions and the protection of individual rights.
The tension between the executive’s push for military trials and the judiciary’s commitment to constitutional principles underscores the ongoing struggle for judicial independence and the rule of law in Uganda.
This development marks a critical juncture in Uganda’s political landscape, highlighting the delicate balance between state power and individual freedoms.
As the debate unfolds, it remains to be seen whether the judiciary can uphold its authority or if the executive will succeed in reshaping the legal framework to its advantage.
