Parliament has adjourned sine die following the heated passage of two controversial pieces of legislation—the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill 2025 and the Political Parties and Organisations Amendment Bill 2025—both of which drew fierce resistance from opposition legislators and civil society.
Speaker Anita Among presided over the final sitting of the session on Monday, adjourning Parliament without setting a date to reconvene after the passage of the bills that critics say strike at the core of civil liberties and political pluralism.
Debate on the UPDF Amendment Bill centred on its provision allowing civilians to be tried in the military’s General Court Martial.
The clause has drawn outrage from human rights advocates, who argue it violates the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal as guaranteed by Uganda’s Constitution.
“This is an affront to civilian justice,” said one legal activist who followed the debate.
“Military courts are designed for military discipline, not to try civilians. This sets a dangerous precedent.”
Opposition MPs stormed out of the chambers in protest, branding the move unconstitutional and vowing to challenge the law in court.
But with the ruling party holding the majority, the bill passed despite the uproar.
A similar walkout accompanied the vote on the Political Parties and Organisations Amendment Bill 2025, which critics say targets parties that are not part of the Inter-Party Organisation for Dialogue (IPOD), a platform some opposition groups have rejected as compromised.
The new law imposes restrictions that appear to limit access to public funding and media coverage for parties that abstain from IPOD activities.
Opposition leaders have slammed the bill as a tool for political gatekeeping.
“This is coercion in the guise of regulation,” said a party secretary-general from outside the IPOD framework.
“You cannot legislate loyalty to a dialogue platform. Parties have a right to choose their modes of engagement.”
Proponents of the bills have defended them as necessary for strengthening discipline in both the security and political arenas.
Government MPs insisted that the military needs expanded jurisdiction to respond to rising security threats, and that party regulations are needed to maintain a cohesive democratic process.
Following the adjournment, Speaker Among praised the House for what she called a productive session.
“We have passed critical legislation. Let us now go back to our constituents and explain what these laws mean,” she said.
But the reaction outside Parliament was far less celebratory. Civil society organisations, legal experts, and opposition parties have signalled plans to challenge the laws in court, citing potential violations of constitutional safeguards.
Legal analysts warn that the new UPDF law may face a direct challenge under Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing in an independent and impartial court.
Uganda’s Constitutional Court has previously ruled against the trial of civilians in military courts, although the rulings have not halted the practice.
The new law could be interpreted as an attempt to entrench what critics describe as a dual system of justice—one that places certain categories of citizens under the command structure of the military.
Meanwhile, the Political Parties law may be tested under provisions of Article 72, which protects the freedom to form and operate a political party without compulsion or interference.
As Parliament winds down, attention now turns to the President’s desk.
The bills await assent, though the Constitution allows for petitions challenging their constitutionality even after they become law.
The adjournment sine die brings to a close a charged session, but the battle over these laws appears far from over.