The government is proposing that civilians could once again face trial in military courts under what it terms as “limited circumstances,” as outlined in the lead judgment by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo. The proposed legislation seeks to amend Section 117 of the UPDF Act to specify which individuals, beyond members of the defence forces, may be subject to military law.
Defence and Veterans’ Affairs Minister Jacob Oboth Oboth recently presented the UPDF Amendment Bill to Parliament. Among its provisions is the reinstatement of military court jurisdiction over civilians.
Oboth explained that the 144-page bill was partly shaped by the Supreme Court’s January 31, 2025, ruling that nullified several provisions of the UPDF Act that allowed for civilian trials in military courts.
“The bill seeks to implement the Supreme Court decision in Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021—Attorney General vs Hon. Michael A. Kabaziguruka by restructuring and re-establishing the courts martial in the defence forces and prescribing their jurisdiction. The bill provides for the membership and qualifications of the chairpersons of the courts martial and their independence, and the appeal process. It further stipulates the exceptional circumstances under which civilians may be tried by military courts,” Oboth told Parliament.
Speaker Anita Annet Among has since referred the bill to both the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee and the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee for review.
According to the proposal, civilians may be tried by military courts under specified “limited circumstances,” a phrase that Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo used in his lead judgment.
The amendment to Section 117 identifies non-military individuals who could fall under military jurisdiction. These include persons who voluntarily accompany military units on active duty or are found in unlawful possession of arms, ammunition, or other items restricted to military use.
Also included are civilians who assist or conspire with members of the defence forces in committing serious crimes such as murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping with intent to murder, treason, misprision of treason, or cattle rustling.
Additionally, individuals found wearing military uniforms or in possession of military equipment or classified items without proper authorization could also face trial in military courts.
However, the scope of these so-called “limited circumstances” appears to echo the types of offences for which civilians were previously tried in military courts—charges the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional.
Although the bill purports to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision, a comparison with the actual judgment reveals notable contradictions.
The heart of the Kabaziguruka case was the constitutionality of trying civilians in military courts. Kabaziguruka contended that such courts are not constitutionally competent to try civilians.
The Supreme Court nearly unanimously supported this view, raising concerns about the composition of military courts, the qualifications of their members, lack of secure tenure, and the absence of structural independence.
The Court concluded that these issues prevent military courts from delivering fair and impartial justice—not only for civilians but even for military personnel. In his lead opinion, Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo observed: “With regard to the military, as can be seen from their structure, rules, and procedures, conducting trials of civilians generally does not fit within their mandate.”
He cautioned that placing civilians before military tribunals, regardless of the nature of the crime or their association with military personnel, strips them of the legal protections they would receive in civil courts.
“Extending the jurisdiction of military courts to cover civilians in a blanket manner, whether they are alleged accomplices or found in possession of military stores, is unacceptable. This would amount to an unfettered limitation on the enjoyment of rights and freedoms enshrined in Article 43 of the Constitution,” Owiny-Dollo stated.
He further noted: “The general rule is that ordinary courts alone have jurisdiction to try civilians. I am unable to find any rational or justifiable link between the need to maintain discipline in the army or secure Ugandan borders and the trial of civilians in military tribunals.”
In situations where civilians are accused of breaching military regulations alongside individuals subject to court martial, Owiny-Dollo emphasized that both should be tried in civilian courts.
He also rejected the frequently used argument—advanced by President Museveni and others—that military courts provide speedier justice: “This argument is not sound… The state also has a duty to strengthen ordinary courts and thus empower them to function at an optimal capacity.”
Alignment with Court Recommendations
Despite these contradictions, parts of the UPDF Amendment Bill respond to the Supreme Court’s guidance.
Owiny-Dollo clarified: “Courts martial are not unconstitutional merely by their military nature.” He added: “There is a need for robust legislative intervention to ensure the UPDF Act is in accord with the cherished aspirations of the people of Uganda, as was unmistakably captured in the Odoki Commission report. The executive must generate policy, and parliament must enact legislation that addresses and cures the injustice occasioned by the unconstitutional provisions of the UPDF Act.”
The proposed bill addresses some of these concerns by setting minimum legal qualifications for military court chairpersons. Chairs of the Unit and Division Court Martials must hold a Bachelor of Laws and a Postgraduate Diploma in Legal Practice.
For the General Court Martial, the chairperson must possess qualifications equivalent to those of a High Court judge, while panel members must be advocates of the High Court. All appointments will be made by the High Command on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission and will last three years, subject to renewal.
Currently, military court members are not required to have legal qualifications, and the Judicial Service Commission has no involvement in their appointment. The bill also introduces the right of appeal—allowing decisions from the General Court Martial to be appealed in the Civil Court of Appeal.
Additionally, any death sentence handed down by the General Court Martial must receive confirmation from the Supreme Court. To reinforce judicial independence, the bill mandates that members of courts martial take a judicial oath similar to that taken by judges.
It states: “The members of the courts martial shall, in the performance of their judicial functions, be independent and impartial and shall not be subject to command.”
