Army Court Declared Structurally Flawed and Lacking Independence
In a historic ruling, Uganda’s Supreme Court has sharply criticized the UPDF General Court Martial, declaring it incompetent to try civilians. The ruling, delivered by a panel of five justices, raises serious constitutional questions about the fairness, independence, and legitimacy of the military tribunal when handling cases involving non-military personnel.
The verdict follows a petition filed by former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, who in 2016 challenged his trial before the military court. Although the Constitutional Court ruled in his favor, the Attorney General appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, sparking years of legal wrangling.
After a lengthy delay in delivering its ruling—partly due to the death of two judges on the panel and the retirement of another—the Supreme Court has now ruled against the military court’s jurisdiction over civilians, setting a powerful precedent for similar cases.
Key Rulings and Judicial Opinions
Court Martial’s Structure Violates the Right to a Fair Trial
Justice Faith Mwondha argued that while the General Court Martial is legally recognized under Article 129(1)(d) of the Constitution, its structure undermines the fundamental right to a fair trial.
“The General Court Martial’s jury membership under Section 195 of the UPDF Act undermines its independence and impartiality and is inconsistent with the fundamental rights to a fair trial enshrined in Articles 121 and 44 of the Constitution.”
She further declared Section 117(1)(h) of the UPDF Act void for being too vague, emphasizing that Kabaziguruka’s trial before the military court was unconstitutional.
Judicial Service Commission Should Appoint Court Martial Judges
Justice Monica Kalyegira Mugenyi echoed these concerns, stating that military courts should primarily consist of civilian judges appointed by the Judicial Service Commission. She argued that the framers of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution never intended to grant military courts authority over civilians.
“Leading up to the 1995 Constitution, the Constituent Assembly did not envisage granting the army court jurisdiction over civilians.”
Court Martial Overstepping Its Legal Boundaries
Justice Catherine Bamugemereire took an even stronger stance, ruling that the General Court Martial’s authority over civilians is an overreach.
“For creating such vulnerabilities, I would declare Sections 1, 117, and 117(h) unconstitutional. I would forthwith suspend all operations of the courts-martial, save for the hearing of disciplinary matters pertaining to serving officers.”
Justice Elizabeth Musoke also criticized the structural deficiencies of the military tribunal, stating that its setup compromises its ability to function independently.
Implications for Besigye and Other Civilians Facing Military Trials
The ruling is a major legal breakthrough for civilians currently facing military court proceedings, including opposition leader Col Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused Obeid Lutale.
For years, the General Court Martial had resisted efforts to transfer Besigye’s case to a civilian court, arguing that it had legal grounds to prosecute him.
With the Supreme Court now declaring the Court Martial structurally flawed, there is renewed hope that Besigye and others may soon see their cases moved to civilian courts, ensuring greater transparency and judicial fairness.
Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo’s Final Ruling Still Underway
As of publication time, Chief Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo was still reading his 200-page judgment, expected to continue late into the night.
His final pronouncement will further shape the future of military courts and their jurisdiction over civilians in Uganda.
This ruling could trigger widespread legal reforms, potentially overhauling the way the UPDF Court Martial operates and paving the way for civilians to receive justice in proper judicial forums.
Stay tuned for more updates as this landmark case unfolds!
