It is erroneous for anybody to think that what the Supreme Court said was a release order-Mao
Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Norbert Mao, has clarified recent public misunderstandings regarding the Supreme Court’s directive on a high-profile case, stating that the Court did not issue a release order.
Mao explained that the Court's judgment simply called for the case to be transferred to the appropriate court for further hearings.
Keep Reading
“It’s erroneous for anybody to think that what the Supreme Court said was a release order. The court didn’t say, 'I have freed' they only instructed that the case be brought before the proper court for a hearing,” Mao emphasised.
He urged the public to avoid misinterpreting the judgment.
Mao also addressed concerns about the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, particularly its alignment with the Constitution.
While affirming that the judiciary does not create laws, he stated the government is ready to review the Act to ensure it complies with the Constitution if necessary.
“If the courts say the UPDF Act collides with the Constitution, then we have homework to do,” Mao noted, underscoring the government's commitment to reviewing the legislation if required.
Several Members of Parliament have expressed frustration over the government's handling of the Supreme Court judgement, particularly its failure to implement the decision swiftly.
Semujju Ibrahim, MP for Kira Municipality, criticised Mao for attempting to justify the government’s failure to comply with the Court’s judgment.
"My disappointment with Hon. Norbert Mao is that he's seeking to rationalise the disobedience of a Supreme Court judgment by government agencies," Semujju stated..
Kanushu Laura, the PWD Representative, questioned the value of Parliament debating a ruling that should be implemented immediately.
“As Parliament, we cannot make a resolution on a court judgment even a layman understands that! What value do we add by discussing a ruling that should simply be implemented?” she said.
Meanwhile, Joseph Ssewungu, MP for Kalungu West , raised concerns over the continued detention of opposition figures, including Dr. Col. Besigye, despite the Court's ruling.
“Under what legal regime are Dr. Col. Besigye, NUP supporters, and the Karacunas still in detention after the Supreme Court judgment?” Ssewungu demanded, calling for immediate action.
The MPs’ remarks reflect mounting frustration with the government's handling of judicial decisions, urging swift action to ensure compliance with court orders and to preserve the separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's judgment clarified the role of the Court Martial, reaffirming that it is a disciplinary body for the military and not a forum for trying civilians or criminal cases.
The Court's decision called for all criminal cases to be handled by civilian courts, stating that the Court Martial's jurisdiction is limited to military discipline.
This ruling has significant implications for those convicted by the Court Martial.
The Supreme Court ordered that all such cases be reviewed by civilian courts. Individuals convicted by military tribunals and still serving sentences will have their cases reconsidered by competent civilian judicial authorities.
