Sign in Subscribe
Legislative bills

Parliament's Misguided Move: The UPDF Amendment Bill Challenges Constitutional Safeguards

Strategic Insights

— 1 min read

The ongoing debate over the UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, raises critical concerns regarding the trial of civilians by military courts. The proposed legislation contradicts the Supreme Court of Uganda's constitutional safeguards, as articulated in the landmark case of Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka. The Bill's Clause 30, which seeks to subject civilians to trial by military courts, ignores the Court's clear standards for when military courts can exercise jurisdiction over civilians. The Court emphasized the need for "compelling reasons" and "concrete" evidence to justify such a situation, which the Bill fails to provide.

Key Takeaways:

  • The Supreme Court of Uganda, in the case of Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka, held that ordinary courts should have jurisdiction to try civilians, except in exceptional circumstances.
  • The Court emphasized that military courts should only try civilians where there are "compelling reasons" and a "clear and predictable legal basis."
  • The Bill, as currently drafted, assigns certain offenses to be tried by military courts, ignoring the Court's requirement for a "concrete" demonstration of exceptional circumstances.
  • The Bill will allow civilians to be tried by military courts simply due to being accused of certain offenses, regardless of the availability of competent civilian courts.
  • Uganda already possesses specialized civilian courts, such as the High Court, capable of handling sensitive or complex cases.
  • The proposed legislation does not stipulate a requirement for the State to demonstrate exceptional circumstances in each individual case.
  • The Supreme Court's decision in Kabaziguruka was unequivocal: there should be no blanket trial of civilians in military courts.
  • The Court noted that the mere fact that an offense involves a member of the armed forces or relates to military equipment does not justify denying a civilian the protections of the ordinary criminal justice system.

Statistics:

  • The Supreme Court held that military courts should only try civilians in specific, exceptional circumstances (Source: Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka).
  • The Court emphasized the need for "compelling reasons" and "concrete" evidence to justify trial by military courts (Source: Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka).
  • The Bill proposes to try civilians by military courts for offenses involving members of the armed forces or military equipment (Source: UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025).
  • Uganda already has specialized civilian courts, such as the High Court, capable of handling sensitive or complex cases (Source: Supreme Court of Uganda).

Sources:

  • Attorney General v. Kabaziguruka, Supreme Court of Uganda decision (no date)
  • UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025 (no date)

Read more