On Tuesday, Uganda’s Parliament passed the highly contentious UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, granting military courts the authority to try civilians under specific conditions—a move that directly contradicts a Supreme Court judgment made just over three months ago.
Sections 29 and 30 of the new law allow military tribunals to prosecute civilians found in possession of prohibited weapons or accused of collaborating with soldiers in serious crimes like treason, murder, or aggravated robbery.
The bill now awaits President Museveni’s signature, which is considered a formality due to his strong and consistent support for it.
Opposition MPs strongly objected to the bill, condemning it as unconstitutional. Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi, who led a dramatic walkout from the session, criticized the legislation as rushed and oppressive, promising to challenge it in court.
Nansana MP Wakayima Musoke accused the military of trying to create a parallel justice system, calling it unacceptable. Together with MPs Geoffrey Lutaaya and Geoffrey Kayemba Ssolo, he said they were not given enough time to thoroughly review the bill, justifying their decision to walk out.
Kioga North MP Moses Okot Bitek added that military courts lack independence and impartiality, making them unsuitable and contrary to principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
Central to the controversy is a January 31, 2025 Supreme Court ruling that deemed the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. The court ordered such cases, including one involving opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye and others, to be shifted to civilian courts. Legal experts praised the ruling as a victory for constitutional governance and judicial independence.
Opposition MPs cited Article 92 of the Constitution—which prohibits Parliament from passing laws that reverse court decisions—and accused the ruling NRM of undermining the judiciary to consolidate executive power.
Ssenyonyi condemned the bill as an effort to legalize unconstitutional practices. Opposition MP Jonathan Odur, in a minority report, warned that ignoring the Supreme Court’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent.
Despite opposition outcry, the NRM used its numerical advantage to pass the bill amid heightened security presence in Parliament.
State Minister for Sports Peter Ogwang passionately defended the bill, sharing his traumatic past where his mother was raped by Karimojong warriors, saying this shaped his support for tougher military enforcement. Soi MP Fadhil Chemaswet also defended the role of military courts in maintaining army discipline.
Gen. Moses Ali, Second Deputy Prime Minister, made his first parliamentary appearance in a year, which Kalungu MP Joseph Ssewungu saw as a sign of the executive’s commitment to pushing the bill.
Defense Minister Jacob Oboth-Oboth, who introduced the bill, claimed it aimed to protect national security, not to target ordinary citizens. “It’s about those who pose threats to the country,” he argued.
Legal professionals voiced strong opposition. In a Daily Monitor op-ed, lawyer Denis Kusaasira of the Uganda Law Society criticized the bill for disregarding the Supreme Court ruling, warning against “blanket trials” of civilians in military courts. He urged that any civilian trials in such courts should be allowed only under extraordinary circumstances.
Meanwhile, Parliament also passed the Political Parties and OOrganizations(Amendment) Bill, 2025, which limits public funding to political parties only registered under the National Consultative Forum (NCF). If signed into law, parties like the NUP—which are not part of NCF or IPOD—would be denied public funds.
Opposition figures denounced the bill. UPC party leader Jimmy Akena criticized the move, saying he wasn’t consulted as IPOD summit chair. He called the legislation self-serving and against the interests of political stakeholders.
However, Democratic Party legal officer Kenneth Nsubuga welcomed the amendment, arguing it would formalize IPOD and reduce manipulation by parties avoiding meaningful engagement.
Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka defended the bill, stating it was intended to streamline the NCF’s structure and improve political organization.
Critics warn that both pieces of legislation—especially in the lead-up to the 2026 elections—could be used to clamp down on dissent and suppress opposition movements under the guise of national security and political reform.
Posts
0 Comments