The Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025 is set to pass through Parliament, following approval by a joint committee that endorsed a controversial clause allowing civilians to be tried in military courts.
The bill seeks to amend the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Act to restructure military court systems, define key legal terms, and align court martial operations with the Constitution. Among the most contentious amendments is the reintroduction of a provision allowing civilians to be tried in military courts—an issue that was previously struck down by the Supreme Court.
On January 31, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional. This led to the withdrawal of the bill when it was first tabled in December 2024. However, the clause was reinstated and sent to a joint committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Defence and Internal Affairs for review.
In a report presented to Parliament on Tuesday, the majority of MPs—mainly from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM)—endorsed the clause, arguing that it serves national security interests, though they proposed several adjustments.
“Military trials primarily apply to UPDF personnel, but they also touch on national security. Civilians may engage in activities that jeopardize national security—justifying their inclusion under military law,” the committee report states.
However, the committee acknowledged concerns about the vague definition of “exceptional circumstances” under which civilians could be tried. It warned that this ambiguity could lead to abuse.
One clause, paragraph (d), permits the trial of civilians for aiding military personnel in committing crimes such as murder, treason, and cattle rustling. The committee found that this section lacked specificity and undermined the legality principle enshrined in the Constitution.
Further, the committee expressed concerns about the independence of military courts. While the bill proposes legal qualifications for court members and the establishment of a Military Court Department (MCD), the structure raises questions of judicial impartiality.
“The MCD includes both judicial and prosecutorial roles—such as the head of the General Court Martial and military prosecutors—which violates the principle of natural justice and compromises fair hearings,” the committee noted.
The committee also opposed the clause allowing the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) to confer a temporary rank on the Court Martial chairperson equal to that of a higher-ranking defendant. It warned this could lead to delays or manipulation of proceedings.
Other recommendations include:
- Extending the term of presiding officers from three to five years (renewable).
- Strengthening the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) role in appointments to ensure independence.
Currently, the High Command appoints all members from a list it generates in consultation with the JSC, but the committee noted that this process is vague and susceptible to external influence.
Two minority reports were presented in opposition. The first, authored by Erute South MP Jonathan Odur, argued that the entire bill is unconstitutional, particularly its provisions regarding civilian trials.
“Proceeding with this bill undermines the rule of law and the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive, legislature, and judiciary,” Odur warned.
He further cautioned MPs against granting such broad powers to the President, reminding them that a different leader will inevitably take office.
“Imagine what any of the following future leaders could do with these powers,” Odur said, listing potential successors including Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, Hon. Robert Kyagulanyi (Bobi Wine), and Dr. Kizza Besigye, among others.
A second minority report, signed by 13 of 21 MPs led by Busiro East MP Medard Lubega Sseggona, listed eight objections to the bill, including:
- Violation of the Constitution
- Illegality of military trials for civilians
- Breach of separation of powers
- Lack of public participation
- Unconstitutional expansion of military court jurisdiction
- Overreach of Parliament’s legislative powers
- Lack of judicial independence
- Noncompliance with Supreme Court advisory orders
“Military courts are disciplinary bodies for UPDF members—not general criminal courts. Parliament’s role is confined to discipline and removal, not criminal trials,” the minority report stated.
As of the time of publication, parliamentary debate on the bill is ongoing. However, given the numerical strength of the NRM in Parliament, the bill is widely expected to pass—despite objections from minority voices and warnings from constitutional experts.
