Supreme Court Declares Military Trials for Civilians Unconstitutional

Supreme Court Declares Military Trials for Civilians Unconstitutional

In a landmark ruling, Justice Catherine Bamugemereire of the Supreme Court has suspended all proceedings in the General Court Martial (GCM), declaring that the military tribunal has no constitutional authority to try civilians. The ruling marks a significant step in Uganda’s judicial reforms, particularly regarding the military justice system and the protection of civilian rights under the Constitution.

Justice Bamugemereire ruled that the General Court Martial, as currently structured, lacks the legal mandate to prosecute civilians, as its procedures violate the principles of fairness and impartiality enshrined in Uganda’s Constitution.

“Judicial power, as per the law, is vested in the judiciary, and the General Court Martial is subordinate to the judicial system,” she stated.
“It is an overreach to create an offense making civilians liable for crimes under military law.”

As part of her ruling, she suspended all ongoing civilian trials within the General Court Martial, limiting its jurisdiction exclusively to military personnel. She further directed that any soldiers accused of committing offenses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts, ensuring alignment with constitutional provisions.

Additionally, Justice Bamugemereire placed an injunction on further military tribunal proceedings involving civilians, stating that all pending cases should be subject to judicial review before any further action is taken.

Echoing Earlier Rulings on Military Justice

Justice Bamugemereire’s ruling builds on an earlier judgment by Justice Monica Mugenyi, who, along with a panel of seven Supreme Court justices, had ruled that Section 117(1)(h) of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act—which permitted the trial of civilians in military courts—was unconstitutional.

In her ruling, Justice Mugenyi emphasized the lack of independence and impartiality within the General Court Martial, stating:

“The General Court Martial is not an independent and impartial court and is inconsistent with the Constitution.”

She further criticized Section 117(1)(h) of the UPDF Act as vague and unconstitutional, calling for reforms to increase judicial oversight over military court operations.

Justice Mugenyi also proposed that the appointment of General Court Martial judges be conducted in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, ensuring that the tribunal operates with greater legal expertise and impartiality.

While her ruling left room for possible amendments to the UPDF Act, it firmly reiterated that the trial of civilians by military courts remains a constitutional issue that requires further scrutiny.

A Shift Towards Judicial Oversight and Civilian Protection

These rulings signal a decisive shift in Uganda’s legal framework, reinforcing the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that civilians are not subjected to military justice in violation of their constitutional rights. The decisions pave the way for broader judicial reforms, guaranteeing that military courts remain strictly within their jurisdiction and do not overreach into civilian matters.

The ruling also comes at a time of ongoing military trials involving high-profile political figures, including opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, further emphasizing the urgent need for reform in Uganda’s military justice system.

With the Supreme Court’s clear stance on the issue, Uganda now has an opportunity to align its military court system with constitutional protections, ensuring that all citizens, regardless of their political affiliations, receive a fair and impartial trial

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Даркнет Сайт Кракен Зеркало Ссылка