By The tabling of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025, which is Parliament is expected this afternoon has triggered a storm of legal and human rights concerns, particularly over its provisions for the military trial of civilians.
The 143-page bill, containing 84 clauses, marks a sweeping overhaul of the current UPDF Act. However, lawyer and human rights defender Nicholas Opiyo has described the bill as a “clever attempt” to evade a recent Supreme Court ruling that declared civilian trials before military courts unconstitutional.
Also Read
Supreme Court Bans Trial of Civilians in Military Courts
Supreme Court Declares Military Trials for Civilians Unconstitutional
Supreme Court to Deliver Landmark Ruling on Trial of Civilians in Military Courts
Police Roll Out 24/7 Speed Surveillance As Road Deaths Soar
How to Build a Successful Non-Profit Organization in Africa
Government Suspends YY Coaches Over Fatal Crashes
“The bill echoes the court’s language by allowing trials of civilians only in ‘exceptional circumstances’ yet fails to define what those circumstances are,” Opiyo noted in a lengthy preliminary analysis shared Monday.
Clause 30 of the bill introduces Section 117A, which significantly expands the category of people who may fall under military jurisdiction. These include anyone accompanying an army unit in active service such as spouses, children, and household members as well as contractors, civilians unlawfully possessing military equipment, or those aiding service members in committing crimes like treason or robbery.
Opiyo questioned what is truly “exceptional” about these circumstances. “Except for military-grade equipment, most of these categories involve civilians in situations that should be handled by civilian courts,” he said.
The bill also lists items whose possession could trigger military prosecution. These include not only weapons like AK-47s and pistols some of which are licensed under the Firearms Act but also substances like ammonium nitrate, which is widely used in agriculture and industry. Certain clothing items, such as “Kaunda suits” in specific colors, are now designated as UPDF-exclusive regalia under Schedules 7A and 7B of the bill.
Opiyo also warned that the bill revives old military court provisions previously ruled unconstitutional, by embedding them into the main Act rather than the regulations.
Another key concern is the structure and composition of military courts. The bill proposes to rename the Unit Disciplinary Committee as the “Unit Court Martial,” while dissolving the Court Martial Appeals Court.
Three levels of military courts will remain: Unit Court Martial, Division Court Martial, and the General Court Martial. However, questions persist about the qualifications and independence of those who will sit on these benches.
For example, while the chairperson of the General Court Martial must be legally qualified to serve as a High Court judge, no such requirement applies to most of the other court members. At the Division and Unit levels, many court members including political commissars and junior officers need not have legal training at all.
“The Supreme Court previously condemned the practice of laypeople handing down decisions in cases involving serious crimes, including those that carry the death penalty,” Opiyo said. “This bill falls short of fixing that.”
Appointments to the military courts will largely remain under the control of the UPDF High Command, though nominally in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC). Opiyo warned that the lack of clarity around this “consultation” process could invite abuse.
“All chairpersons will serve three-year terms, but the tenure of most other members is undefined, creating ad hoc courts that lack accountability,” he said.
Also Read
DP In ICU, Needs Revival- Lumu Decries ‘Sham’ Vetting Ahead Of DP Elections
FDC Eyes Unity As Flag Bearer Vetting Takes Center Stage
Bobi Wine, EU Envoy Meet Over Rights Abuses Ahead Of 2026 Polls
Lukwago Declares PFF Registration Complete, Mobilization Underway
Court Blocks Nalukoola’s Bid To Cross-Examine Nambi’s Witnesses
Lukolokomba Takes Over as Buikwe DP Chair, As Lulume Steps Down
Despite stating that court members will not be subject to military command, the bill’s critics argue that without a robust system of independent oversight, this claim may ring hollow.
Background
The Supreme Court’s landmark January 31 ruling ruled that civilian trials in military courts violated fundamental rights to a fair hearing and legal independence. The judgment followed years of criticism from civil society and legal experts, citing politically motivated prosecutions and lack of judicial competence in military tribunals.
Today’s tabling of the UPDF Amendment Bill, seen as the government’s attempt to comply with the ruling, is now under intense scrutiny.
“The bill reads like a legislative sleight of hand,” Opiyo concluded. “It maintains military court jurisdiction over civilians under broad and vague terms, undermining the very spirit of the Supreme Court judgment.”
Parliament is expected to begin debating the bill this week. Whether lawmakers will push for revisions or pass it in its current form remains to be seen.
3 Comments