By Faridah N Kulumba
Africa-Press – Uganda. Uganda’s Parliament set 20th May 2025 to debate the controversial Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025 which mainly seeks to empower military courts to try civilians. Uganda’s Supreme Court on 31 January 2025, ruled that the General Court Martial (GCM) has no jurisdiction to try civilians, declaring its involvement in such cases unconstitutional.
However, in Feb.2025, Uganda’s President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni wrote in a press release that the Supreme Court judgment that blocked the trial of civilians before the General Court Martial was “wrong.”
“Anyway, the country is not governed by judges,” Museveni wrote in part, “Let, therefore, the Attorney-General propose the amendments to the constitution of the laws to help our Judges in future from interfering with this useful self-protection instrument for the Country and also remove any irrationalities if any.” On 14th May 2025, the government of Uganda introduced a Bill in parliament to reverse that decision.
Why the opposition walked out of Parliament
On 20th May 2025, the Leader of Opposition (LoP) Joel Ssenyonyi led opposition Members of Parliament (MPs) to march out plenary in protest over “rushed handling” of the UPDF. Amendment Bill and the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill. Before marching out of the House, Ssenyonyi told the plenary that the opposition would not participate in a “sham” process. This followed an announcement by the Government Chief Whip, Hamson Obua the day before that the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) MPs, who are the majority in Parliament, resolved to pass the bill as it is. Obua told reporters after a caucus meeting between President Museveni and NRM lawmakers.The LoP also argued that the stakeholders that ought to have been consulted by the Defence and Legal and Parliamentary Affairs committees that scrutinized the bill were shunned and/or invited on short notice as a pretext to avoid their input.
Some stakeholders discontent
According to the LoP Ssenyonyi, his political party, the National Unity Platform (NUP), also the main opposition party, received an invitation from the committee on short notice, which made it impossible for the party to appear and present its views on an over 150-page bill. “My political party received the invitation at 8am, saying, Come at 9am. We wrote to the committee requesting that this be very short notice; there is no magic we could do. We requested Monday at 9am. The committee received our letter. It did not write back to us. As we were waiting to show up on Monday to present our views, we heard they were busy processing and writing a report. That is problematic,” Ssenyonyi told parliament before opposition MPs marched out.
Also, the Uganda Law Society (ULS). raised the same issue. According to the ULS Vice President, Anthony Asiimwe, the Bar received an invitation at 8:00am to appear before the committee at 9:00am and this was a short time for them to respond.Ssenyonyi told lawmakers that Parliament should work in the interest of the people of Uganda. “We are supposed to be a people-centered parliament, meaning that the laws we pass must be for the good of the people. Those people must be consulted so that they have their input. You can end up disregarding the input of stakeholders, but listen to them,” he said. Lawmaker Gorret Nlamugha told Africa-Press that the opposition MPs made a collective decision to walk out the parliament due to the failure of the committee to adequately consult all the relevant stakeholders. Adding that the rules of procedures in parliament are very clear in regards to consultation when a law is referred to an appropriate committee in this case it is the committee of defence and veteran affairs, and committee of legal and parliamentary affairs.
Hon Nlamugga argued that section 135, two of the parliamentary rules of procedures clearly state that “the committee shall examine the bill in detail and make all such inquiries in relation to the bill as the committee considers to expedite all necessary and report to parliament within 45 working days.She questioned that “yes, we agree the committee can report even earlier before the end of 45 days but considering the importance of the UPDF bill and political parties bill, was it the best the committee did to prevent the bill within 5 days? NUP as a party was not given time and all other political parties plus other stakeholders.” Namugga said. Namugga clarified they made the decision of storming out of the parliament as a sign to show that parliament cannot take Ugandans for granted. And such illegalities cannot be accepted especially in the process of making laws because these laws have a great impact on all Ugandans.
Why the opposition against the UPDF bill
Once passed by Parliament and assented to by the President, the new law (now UPDF Act) will facilitate the trail of civilians in the military courts – a practice that was pronounced illegal by the Supreme Court. In January, after the court martial was banned by the Supreme Court, the head of the main opposition party in Uganda NUP Robert Kyagulanyi alias Bobi Wine issued a statement saying that they welcomed the Supreme Court ruling because they had always condemned these inherently unfair trials, which were a key weapon of persecution wielded by the regime against its opponents. Adding that since 2020, over 2,000 NUP supporters have been abducted, tortured and subjected to sham military trials.
Previous Supreme Court judgement
*No civilian should ever be tried in court martial.
*Court-martial is a disciplinary tribunal only for enforcing discipline.
*Officers and men of UPDF should not be tried in court martial if it’s not an indiscipline case.
*Court-martial has no powers to send someone to prison or convict anyone because its members are not judicial officers.
*Court martials can only give punishments like reducing the rank, dismissal from the army but not acting judiciously.
*All types of cases, save for servicing military officers’ indiscipline, should be handed over to the DPP’s office.
*All people who were convicted by the Court Martial and are still serving, their cases are to be reviewed by competent courts.
*Court Martial cannot be independent because it is composed of military officers, appointed by the Commander in Chief, and in their oath, they swear to protect him.
*But if one was sentenced and completed the punishment, this judgment shall not work retrospectively.
The passing of the controversial bill amidst opposition disapproval
Upon the opposition MPs walking out, parliament approved the Political Parties and Organizations Amendment Bill 2025, sparking heated debate over its implications for political freedom and governance. Civilian trials reinstated in military court.
The 143-page Bill, tabled by Defence Minister Jacob Oboth, constitutes a major overhaul of the UPDF Act, introducing 84 clauses ranging from structural reforms within the Defence Forces to the contentious provision on court martial jurisdiction over civilians. “The Committee examined this matter and concluded that the trial of civilians by military courts should occur only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that a fair trial is guaranteed,” said Hon. Wilson Kajwengye, the Chairperson of the Defence and Internal Affairs Committee, while presenting the majority report backing the Bill.
For More News And Analysis About Uganda Follow Africa-Press
