The Hoima Post – Trustable News 24 -7
Legal experts, rights defenders, and military analysts warn that Uganda’s expanded military court powers threaten democracy. The government insists it’s the only way to restore order.
A Controversial Law with Far-Reaching Consequences
Uganda’s Parliament has reignited a fierce national debate by amending the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, permitting civilians to be tried in military courts under broadly defined “exceptional circumstances.”
The government maintains the changes are essential to confront armed criminality in volatile regions like Karamoja, where cattle rustling and gun violence remain rampant. But critics—from legal scholars to human rights advocates—warn that the law opens the door to widespread abuse, undermining the foundations of democratic justice.
Dr. James Nkuubi, a military law expert, didn’t mince words:
“This isn’t just about Karamoja. It’s about who controls justice in Uganda. Once you normalize military trials for civilians, democracy erodes.”
He is far from alone in his concern.
What the Law Says—And Why Critics Are Alarmed
The UPDF Amendment Bill 2023 introduces two key provisions:
1. Civilians may be tried in military courts under “exceptional circumstances.”
2. Certain reforms to military court procedures, including the requirement for High Court judges to preside over such trials.
The Government’s Argument
Officials argue the law is a pragmatic response to Uganda’s security challenges, particularly in under-policed regions like Karamoja. Military courts, they say, can deliver justice more efficiently than overburdened civilian courts.
Legal and Rights-Based Objections
Nicholas Opiyo, a leading human rights lawyer and founder of Chapter Four Uganda, is among those pushing back:
“The term ‘exceptional circumstances’ is so broad it could mean anything. Today it’s cattle rustlers, tomorrow it’s opposition activists, journalists, or anyone the state deems a ‘threat.’ This is how dictatorships operate.”
Dr. Livingstone Sewanyana, former UN Independent Expert on Human Rights, echoes the warning:
“International law is clear—military courts should only try civilians when civilian courts are completely non-functional. Uganda still has a working judiciary. This law violates constitutional protections.”
Karamoja: Justified Exception or Dangerous Precedent?
Government spokespeople justify the law primarily through the lens of Karamoja’s long-standing insecurity. Yet experts argue that citing Karamoja may simply be a convenient cover for broader authoritarian ambitions.
Major (Rtd) John Apecu, a security analyst, says:
“The issue isn’t a shortage of military courts. It’s chronic underfunding and mismanagement in civilian policing. The Anti-Stock Theft Unit (ASTU) is riddled with corruption. Fix that first.”
Dr. Nkuubi adds:
“If Karamoja is the justification, why isn’t the law geographically restricted? Because the goal is clear: expand military power across Uganda.”
Uganda’s Troubling Track Record with Military Justice
Uganda has a long, uneasy history of using military courts against civilians—often for political ends.
1980s: Obote’s Economic Crimes Tribunal
Used to target political adversaries under the guise of anti-corruption enforcement.
2005–2023: Anti-Terrorism Act Enforcement
Civilians accused of terrorism were frequently tried in military courts, with limited access to fair trial protections.
Recent Examples:
2020: Satirical writer Kakwenza Rukirabashaija was detained and tortured under military jurisdiction.
2021: Supporters of opposition leader Bobi Wine were charged in military courts following election protests.
2023: Journalists covering UPDF operations were threatened with court martial.
Dr. Sarah Bireete, Executive Director at the Center for Constitutional Governance, notes:
“Every time Uganda expands military courts, it starts with ‘exceptional’ cases—then it becomes routine. Eventually, no civilian is safe.”
Legal Reforms or Constitutional Erosion?
The amendment includes some procedural improvements. For instance:
High Court judges must preside over military court cases involving civilians.
Accused individuals now have broader rights to legal representation.
However, many legal scholars argue these improvements are undermined by the core issue—military courts handling civilian matters.
Prof. Frederick Ssempebwa, a constitutional law expert, warns:
“Enhancing military court procedures is one thing. Extending their reach to civilians is another. It violates Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial court. Military tribunals do not meet that standard.”
Which Path Will Uganda Take?
Uganda’s move places it among other African nations that have granted the military judicial power over civilians—with starkly different outcomes.
Rwanda allows military trials for civilians in limited cases, but critics say it suppresses dissent.
Egypt massively expanded military jurisdiction post-2013, leading to the imprisonment of thousands of activists.
South Africa and Kenya have upheld civilian judicial supremacy, rejecting similar proposals outright.
Oryem Nyeko, a researcher at Human Rights Watch, cautions:
“Uganda is at a crossroads. Will it follow the repressive path of Egypt or the constitutional model of Kenya? The world is watching.”
Conclusion: Security or Control?
The UPDF Amendment Bill is not just a legislative tweak—it marks a deeper power shift.
If the government’s true goal is to improve justice in Karamoja, why not invest in the civilian judiciary and police? If it’s about security, why use courts designed for soldiers to try civilians?
Dr. Nkuubi offers a stark final word:
“Laws like this don’t just change how courts operate. They change society. When military justice becomes routine, democracy begins to disappear.”
Call to Action
Civil society organizations are preparing constitutional challenges.
International observers are monitoring developments closely.
And for Ugandans, one pressing question remains:
Is this the justice system they want?
By Alexander Luyima
