Lawyers Challenge Military Court’s Conviction of Eron Kiiza, Seek High Court Intervention

Lawyers representing Advocate Eron Kiiza, currently serving a nine‐month sentence for contempt following his conviction by the General Court Martial in Makindye this January, have moved the civil division of the High Court to secure his unconditional release.

In a court appearance on Tuesday morning before Judge Douglas Singiza of the civil division, Kiiza’s defense team, led by Peter Walubiri and George Musisi, argued that the military court lacked the authority to try a civilian.

“The fundamental point is that Kiiza was subjected to contempt proceedings in a court that the Supreme Court has ruled lacks the necessary competence and jurisdiction due to its composition and method of appointment,” Walubiri asserted.

The legal team further argued that a landmark Supreme Court decision, which declared the trial of civilians by military courts unconstitutional, mandates that all related proceedings cease immediately.

“The Supreme Court held that any charges or trials involving civilians before a court martial should be terminated and transferred to ordinary courts with proper jurisdiction. Where such convictions and sentences are challenged, the judgment has a retrospective effect, effectively nullifying the military court’s actions,” Walubiri explained.

Judge Singiza questioned what was meant by transferring these cases to “civilian courts.” In response, Walubiri clarified, “If these were criminal trials, they would naturally go to the criminal division. However, administrative divisions are merely conveniences. In regions like Masaka, for instance, judges handle a variety of matters: land, criminal, civil, and even labor issues. Here, we are focused on safeguarding an individual’s liberty, and that right should not be constrained by such administrative boundaries.”

While previous efforts were made to file the case in the criminal division, the defense maintained that the civil division is the appropriate forum for addressing Kiiza’s fundamental right to freedom.

Countering these arguments, Attorney General’s representative Johnson Natuhwera argued that Kiiza’s conviction was lawful. “Eron Kiiza was charged with contempt in the General Court Martial, a court which the Supreme Court has acknowledged as a court of law, although limited to specific cases and offenses. He was tried and sentenced under section 169 (i)g and 212 (9) of the UPDF Act,” Natuhwera stated.

He added that these provisions provide for a maximum sentence of five years, emphasizing that the court martial was notably lenient in Kiiza’s case. Natuhwera maintained that Kiiza’s conviction and sentence remain valid until they are successfully challenged, noting that the proper venue for such an appeal would be the criminal division.

Judge Douglas Singiza has scheduled his ruling for Monday, March 3, 2025, at 2:30 p.m