A growing outcry from the legal community has cast serious doubt over the proposed UPDF Amendment Bill, with lawyers cautioning a joint parliamentary committee that the bill risks invalidation for failing to meet constitutional standards.
They argue that, in its current form, the bill not only undermines public participation but also directly contravenes a Supreme Court ruling.
During a critical session with the joint committee on legal and defence affairs, Advocate Jude Byamukama urged MPs to overhaul the draft legislation.
He contended that several provisions openly disregard a prior Supreme Court decision, thereby calling into question the bill’s legal standing.
“The bill in offing,” Byamukama told the committee, “is in contempt to the Supreme Court ruling and disregards international standards.”
He called for the deletion of section 117(A), warning that its inclusion was a clear violation of constitutional jurisprudence.
Byamukama expressed particular concern over the proposal to expand military jurisdiction over civilians.
He criticised the bill’s vague language, which fails to clearly define the exceptional circumstances under which civilians could be tried in military courts.
This, he argued, defies the Supreme Court’s effort to restrict such powers and instead leaves the door wide open for abuse.
He further urged that the bill incorporate the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, calling it essential for criminal proceedings, including those conducted by military courts.
He also questioned the bill’s silence on related laws such as the Explosives Act, Firearms Act, and the Toxic Chemicals Prohibition Act, arguing that without harmonisation, the proposed amendments risk creating legal inconsistencies.
To strengthen accountability and uphold judicial independence, Byamukama proposed expanding the role of the Judicial Service Commission in military court appointments.
He insisted the commission should have more than just an advisory role, recommending that it be given powers to vet and examine individuals selected to serve on military courts.
He also called for these appointees to be granted a single, non-renewable seven-year tenure, asserting that this would safeguard their independence and prevent political interference.
In a move that could reshape the military justice system, he further proposed that verdicts from military courts be appealable up to the Supreme Court.
This, he said, would reinforce the principle of justice and ensure that decisions made within military tribunals are not beyond review.
The lawyers’ submissions mark a decisive moment in the scrutiny of the UPDF Amendment Bill.
Their warnings highlight deep concerns about constitutionality, judicial overreach, and the erosion of civilian protections.
With Parliament now under increased pressure, the path forward may require significant revisions to bring the bill in line with both domestic law and Uganda’s international obligations.