In a move sending shivers through Ugandans and prompting a dramatic walkout by the opposition, the Joint Committee on Legal and Defense has recommended that civilians continue to be tried in military courts under "exceptional circumstances," despite widespread concerns about fair trial guarantees and constitutional adherence.
The decision, part of the UPDF Amendment Bill 2025, has ignited a fierce debate about the erosion of civilian judicial oversight and the expanding reach of military law.
The Committee's report, seen by this publication, supports the controversial Clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill.
These clauses revise the UPDF Act to clarify who falls under military law, explicitly introducing a new section, 117A, which details "additional individuals who may be governed by military law," effectively bringing certain civilians under military jurisdiction in "exceptional conditions."
While acknowledging that military laws primarily apply to defence forces personnel, the Committee argues that national security elements necessitate civilian accountability for actions impacting national security, "typically reserved for those under military law."
This reasoning, it states, is to "safeguard national security."
However, the Committee's own report flags significant concerns regarding the legality principle. Specifically, it notes that paragraph (d) of the proposed amendments, which allows for the trial of civilians in military courts for aiding and abetting serious crimes, "fails to specify the elements of these offences."
This omission, the Committee admits, "compromises the legality principle defined in Article 28 (12) of the Constitution."
Furthermore, a striking observation from the Committee is that "while civilians are penalised for aiding and abetting these crimes, the primary offenders face no penalties."
Despite these glaring inconsistencies, the Committee maintains its support for trying civilians in exceptional circumstances, provided that amendments to the UPDF Act ensure a fair trial.
These proposed amendments include requiring legal training for those presiding over military trials, a transparent appointment process, and guaranteed independence from superiors' influence.
Skeptics, however, question the feasibility and true independence of military courts, regardless of such provisions, given their inherent structure.
The contentious clauses, 29 and 30, are presented as an effort to align the principal Act with the Supreme Court's ruling in Constitutional Appeal No.2 of 2021: AG Vs Micheal A. Kabaziguruka.
However, the Committee's consultations revealed "diverse opinions" on the Supreme Court's orders.
While some stakeholders argued that the ruling prohibited civilian trials in military courts, the Attorney General and the Minister of Defence contended that such trials could still occur under "exceptional circumstances."
The escalating tension culminated in a dramatic scene in parliament as the opposition staged a walkout, citing an "unease environment of debate" and a "sham process."
A prominent opposition figure, clearly frustrated, was quoted as saying, "I am in a hard place to sit here and deliberate in a sham process."
He had earlier raised concerns about the exclusion of key stakeholders, revealing that his party, NUP, received an invitation to appear before the Committee only an hour before the scheduled time and their request for an alternative slot went unanswered.
The Committee's recommendations, coupled with the opposition's strong dissent and allegations of a flawed consultative process, set a dangerous precedent.
The prospect of civilians facing military justice, even with proposed amendments, raises fundamental questions about human rights, due process, and the separation of powers in Uganda.
As the UPDF Amendment Bill 2025 moves forward, the nation watches with bated breath to see if the safeguards of civilian justice will withstand the expanding reach of military law.