Parliament is poised for a tense session on Tuesday as legislators prepare to debate the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025—a proposal that has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum.
At the heart of the controversy is a provision that would allow military courts to try civilians, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from opposition leaders and legal minds who argue it undermines constitutional protections.
Opposition figures have rallied their members to reject the Bill. Robert Kyagulanyi, leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP), issued a passionate appeal last week urging MPs to block the legislation.
“If you disagree with the regime, or if someone wants your land, they’ll use this law to fabricate charges and drag you before a military court,” he warned. “Reject this Bill not just for your safety, but for the future of Uganda.”
Despite this resistance, the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), which commands a parliamentary majority, is expected to push the Bill through.
Behind closed doors, parliamentary officials admit the session could turn confrontational.
“We’re expecting a stormy debate. Both sides have mobilised heavily,” one insider noted.
The UPDF Amendment Bill seeks to revise the existing Defence Forces Act. Key proposals include:
- Redefining what constitutes a service offence
- Clarifying the structure and jurisdiction of military courts
- Aligning courts martial operations with constitutional standards
It also touches on seemingly minor issues, such as reserving certain items—like black ceremonial shoes—for exclusive military use, a clause that has raised eyebrows among MPs.
The joint committee on Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Defence recently began examining the Bill. In those sessions, lawmakers questioned both the intent and legality of the amendments.
Hon. Jonathan Odur (UPC, Erute South) challenged the Attorney General to point to the exact language in the Supreme Court ruling being used to justify civilian trials in military courts.
Hon. Mathias Mpuuga (NUP, Nyendo-Mukungwe) argued that treating the UPDF Act as superior to the Constitution sets a dangerous precedent.
“This Bill implies the UPDF Act now overrides the Constitution. That’s unacceptable,” Mpuuga stated.
Hon. Abdu Katuntu (Ind., Bugweri County) expressed support for trying civilians found with military-grade weapons but criticized using courts martial for trivial infractions like possession of military shoes or uniforms.
Hon. Naboth Namanya (Rubabo County) echoed those concerns with a hint of satire, noting even the Minister himself wore shoes now classified as military.
“You might be the first person brought before court martial,” he quipped.
Yet not all lawmakers oppose the Bill. Hon. Norman Ochero (Labwor County) defended the military court system, saying it is critical for enforcing discipline and order within the armed forces.
“Without court martial oversight, the military could descend into disorder,” he said.
Responding to critics, Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka pushed back on claims that the Supreme Court had banned military courts from trying civilians.
“The ruling did not prohibit such trials outright,” Kiwanuka clarified. “The concerns were about the constitutional setup and vague definitions of offences—not the principle of jurisdiction.”
He argued that the amendments aim to correct those shortcomings and bring the UPDF Act into full constitutional alignment.
As the debate looms, the outcome will likely test not only legal interpretations but also the political will of Parliament to either uphold or challenge the expanding powers of military courts in Uganda.
