Last month, Uganda's Supreme Court made a big ruling against military courts trying regular people. The judges said these courts lack independence and can't give fair trials. The ruling party quickly moved to change laws after this decision. They want to keep trying some civilians in military courts despite what the judges said. The National Resistance Movement voted for changes to the Uganda People's Defence Forces Act.
Government leaders confirmed they plan to allow military courts to try people caught with certain guns. Denis Obua told reporters about their plan to have both soldiers and civilians with illegal guns face the court martial first. He added that people could later appeal these cases through regular courts. This change came after leaders met at State House Entebbe and decided to pull back their original bill from Parliament.
The first version of the bill tried to update military laws for new policies and command structures. It also aimed to help military personnel with better healthcare and pension plans. The Supreme Court ruling forced them to rethink these changes. The case started when former lawmaker Michael Kabaziguruka challenged the military courts' power over civilians.
Justice Catherine Bamugemereire explained that military courts exist mainly for military discipline. She argued that these courts should not handle cases involving regular people. Other judges agreed that the military system lacks the neutrality needed for fair trials. Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo found that these courts couldn't guarantee fairness under the Constitution.
The court struck down parts of the UPDF Act that gave military courts broad powers over civilians. The ruling emphasized that people should face trial in civil courts regardless of their offense. It ordered all civilian cases moved from military to civilian courts right away. The judges directed Parliament to restructure the General Court Martial as part of the High Court system.
They recommended that civilian legal experts run military courts with the same protections as other judges. This would prevent military influence over court decisions. The court also advised creating special military courts for serious offenses committed by soldiers. These changes aim to maintain military discipline yet protect fair trial rights.
Human rights lawyer George Musisi criticized the plan to amend laws. He believes military courts serve as political weapons against opponents. Musisi pointed out how opposition supporters face military trials without solid evidence. He mentioned National Unity Platform members were charged without actually possessing weapons. Many faced accusations about having clothes resembling army uniforms.
Musisi described cases where evidence might have been planted against detained activists. He questioned how people held in Masaka could possess bullets found in Makerere. Bob Kirenga, who leads a human rights group, predicted the amendment would pass because the ruling party controls Parliament. He called lawmakers modern illiterates who refuse to learn from history.
Kirenga expressed deep doubts about military courts handling civilian cases. He explained these courts often bypass due process when dealing with political threats. He urged officials to consider why people distrust military justice. Kirenga stressed fundamental differences between military and civilian systems. Soldiers follow absolute orders, but civilians can question unlawful commands.
He warned about scenarios where evidence appears during searches to frame innocent people. Kirenga criticized Parliament members for letting presidential influence direct their votes. He connected the timing of these changes to upcoming elections. Opposition lawmaker Medard Lubega Sseggona promised to fight the amendments. He argued changing laws to override court decisions violates Article 92 of Uganda's Constitution.
Government leaders confirmed they plan to allow military courts to try people caught with certain guns. Denis Obua told reporters about their plan to have both soldiers and civilians with illegal guns face the court martial first. He added that people could later appeal these cases through regular courts. This change came after leaders met at State House Entebbe and decided to pull back their original bill from Parliament.
The first version of the bill tried to update military laws for new policies and command structures. It also aimed to help military personnel with better healthcare and pension plans. The Supreme Court ruling forced them to rethink these changes. The case started when former lawmaker Michael Kabaziguruka challenged the military courts' power over civilians.
Justice Catherine Bamugemereire explained that military courts exist mainly for military discipline. She argued that these courts should not handle cases involving regular people. Other judges agreed that the military system lacks the neutrality needed for fair trials. Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo found that these courts couldn't guarantee fairness under the Constitution.
The court struck down parts of the UPDF Act that gave military courts broad powers over civilians. The ruling emphasized that people should face trial in civil courts regardless of their offense. It ordered all civilian cases moved from military to civilian courts right away. The judges directed Parliament to restructure the General Court Martial as part of the High Court system.
They recommended that civilian legal experts run military courts with the same protections as other judges. This would prevent military influence over court decisions. The court also advised creating special military courts for serious offenses committed by soldiers. These changes aim to maintain military discipline yet protect fair trial rights.
Human rights lawyer George Musisi criticized the plan to amend laws. He believes military courts serve as political weapons against opponents. Musisi pointed out how opposition supporters face military trials without solid evidence. He mentioned National Unity Platform members were charged without actually possessing weapons. Many faced accusations about having clothes resembling army uniforms.
Musisi described cases where evidence might have been planted against detained activists. He questioned how people held in Masaka could possess bullets found in Makerere. Bob Kirenga, who leads a human rights group, predicted the amendment would pass because the ruling party controls Parliament. He called lawmakers modern illiterates who refuse to learn from history.
Kirenga expressed deep doubts about military courts handling civilian cases. He explained these courts often bypass due process when dealing with political threats. He urged officials to consider why people distrust military justice. Kirenga stressed fundamental differences between military and civilian systems. Soldiers follow absolute orders, but civilians can question unlawful commands.
He warned about scenarios where evidence appears during searches to frame innocent people. Kirenga criticized Parliament members for letting presidential influence direct their votes. He connected the timing of these changes to upcoming elections. Opposition lawmaker Medard Lubega Sseggona promised to fight the amendments. He argued changing laws to override court decisions violates Article 92 of Uganda's Constitution.
