Days after Parliament passed the UPDF Amendment Bill, criticism continues to mount from opposition legislators and legal experts who accuse the 11th Parliament of reversing hard-won judicial gains and reintroducing provisions previously struck down by the Supreme Court.
At the centre of the backlash is the law’s reinstatement of military court jurisdiction over civilians—a matter the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional.
Legislators argue that instead of aligning with that decision, Parliament has entrenched the very provisions that were condemned.
“What Parliament did will go down in history as an open defiance of the Supreme Court,” said Bugiri Municipality MP and lawyer Asuman Basalirwa.
“The exact provisions that were nullified have been maintained. This undermines constitutionalism and sets a dangerous precedent.”
Basalirwa warns that the law poses a threat to ordinary citizens, particularly government critics, who could now be vulnerable to military trials without due process safeguards.
“Everybody's a potential target, everybody's a potential victim—and that’s what makes this unfortunate,” he added.
Makindye West MP Allan Ssewanyana expressed similar fears, noting that the law may now be used selectively against political opponents.
“There’s no longer a moral foundation of law in Uganda. Justice now depends on who is against you,” Ssewanyana said.
The amended law has also sparked confusion and concern over its broad definitions of “military stores.” Items such as Kaunda suits and even ordinary footwear, if resembling military gear, could be interpreted as prohibited attire.
“The new law says a Kaunda suit is now military uniform. That means someone like me with several of them must lock them away. Even shoes—ordinary shoes—are now described as military,” Basalirwa explained.
While Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko, who participated in the debate, acknowledged the law's ambiguity, he defended clauses requiring military insignia to establish an offence.
“We agreed that similarity in colour isn’t enough. It must have a UPDF logo and match official batch numbers,” Nsereko said.
Basalirwa, however, rejected that defence, calling the provisions vague and open to abuse, especially under Schedule 7A.
“If UPDF wants to define their uniform, they should create distinct attire with clear logos. Without that, enforcement becomes arbitrary and susceptible to misuse.”
Legal experts warn that by reintroducing provisions already deemed unconstitutional, Parliament risks weakening the authority of the judiciary and eroding public trust in the legislative process.
Background
The controversy stems from the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Attorney General v. Michael Kabaziguruka (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021), delivered on January 31, 2025.
In this case, former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, a civilian, challenged his trial in a military court on treason charges.
The Supreme Court declared sections of the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Act that allowed for the blanket trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.
The Court emphasized that military courts lack the independence and impartiality required to try civilians, and ordered that all ongoing or pending criminal trials against civilians before military courts cease immediately and be transferred to civilian courts with competent jurisdiction