KAMPALA, Uganda – Uganda’s Parliament on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, passed the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which will allow civilians to be tried in courts-martial under specific circumstances.
The Bill introduces significant reforms to the military justice system, including the establishment of a Directorate of Military Prosecutions. It also restructures health services for armed forces personnel and streamlines veterans’ affairs. A key protection within the Bill prevents the premature execution of a death sentence until it is confirmed by the Supreme Court.
Additionally, the Bill outlines a clear appeal process for courts-martial decisions: from the Unit Court Martial, to the Division Court Martial, then to the General Court Martial, followed by the Court of Appeal, and finally to the Supreme Court.
During the plenary session chaired by Speaker Anita Among, the Minister of Defence and Veteran Affairs, Hon. Jacob Oboth, presented the motion. He clarified that the Bill is not intended to subject all civilians to military courts arbitrarily but targets those involved in military-related offenses.
“This law addresses civilians who acquire arms or equipment used for violence, those who masquerade as militants, and those who commit offenses in collaboration with military personnel,” Oboth stated, aiming to dispel fears that the law targets all Ugandans.
Hon. Wilson Kajwengye, Chairperson of the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs,, presented the joint committee’s report, emphasizing that “the trial of civilians by military courts should occur only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that a fair trial is guaranteed.”
The Bill is a direct response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Attorney General vs. Hon. Michael A. Kabaziguruka, Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021, which had found the trial of civilians in military courts under the existing UPDF Act to be unconstitutional. Kajwengye highlighted that the proposed changes necessitate the restructuring of military courts to ensure their independence and transparency, with those presiding over trials appointed through a transparent process, operating independently of superior influence.
The Bill introduces reforms concerning the structure, appointments, and jurisdiction of military courts.
However, the committee also raised several concerns. Kajwengye pointed out that “The roles and mandate of the Military Courts Department are vague, leaving gaps in oversight and accountability. This overlap of judicial and prosecutorial roles is a violation of natural justice.”
On judicial appointments, the committee recommended increased civilian oversight and the administration of judicial oaths, a proposal upheld by the House. The committee contended that military courts must be governed by judicial oaths and legal standards, suggesting that military court judges should be appointed by the Commander-in-Chief on the recommendation of the Judicial Service Commission from a list generated by the High Command. The committee further proposed that appeals from the General Court Martial should lie with the Court of Appeal.
Regarding military property, the committee recommended the regulation of military-style attire lacking UPDF insignia to distinguish it from civilian wear.
Despite a walk-out by several members of the Opposition led by Hon. Joel Ssenyonyi, the remaining opposition members in the Chamber put up a spirited fight against the Bill.
A minority report, authored by Hon. Moses Okot (FDC, Kioga County), strongly criticized the Bill as unconstitutional and contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment. Okot argued that “Clause 30 proposes the introduction of a new section 117A in the UPDF Act, which provides for ‘other persons subject to military law’. This is a re-enactment of Section 117, which was struck down by the Supreme Court.” He described this as a serious affront to the rule of law and an attack on judicial independence, condemning efforts to reintroduce previously nullified provisions as amounting to contempt of court.
Quoting the Supreme Court ruling, Okot stated, “What Clause 30 presents is a reincarnation of a provision already struck down by the Supreme Court. This is not the conduct of civilized nations.”
Okot further warned against granting military courts power over civilians, noting that “including offences such as murder, aggravated robbery, kidnap with intent to murder, and treason as service offenses effectively extends military court jurisdiction to non-disciplinary crimes. This contravenes Articles 209 and 210 of the Constitution.” He maintained that military courts are internal disciplinary bodies, not substitutes for ordinary criminal courts.
Hon. Jonathan Odur (UPC, Erute County South), who also dissented, warned that the passing of the Bill would be remembered as “the birth of military dictatorship.” He argued, “This Bill is a direct assault on the Constitution and the rule of law. The Supreme Court was clear, civilians must not face military tribunals.” He added, “Imagine a future where any civilian – opposition leader, activist, or journalist, can be dragged before a Court Martial. This is not the Uganda envisioned in our Constitution.”
Hon. Fox Odoi-Oywelowo (NRM, West Budama North East County) successfully moved a motion to suspend Rule 214(14), allowing debate on the matter to proceed.
During the debate, Hon. Gilbert Olanya (FDC, Kilak South) demanded clarity from the Attorney General on what constitutes “exceptional circumstances” under which civilians can be tried by a military court.
The Minister of State for Sports, Hon. Peter Ogwang, criticized the narrow focus of the debate on civilian trials, arguing that the Bill broadly enhances the welfare of the armed forces. “The Court Martial has enabled our people to return home and to their farms. Where were you when our cattle were stolen by rustlers? To say the Court Martial has failed in Karamoja is unrealistic,” he said.
Hon. Patrick Isiagi (NRM, Kachumbala County) supported the notion that civilians who take up arms or handle military hardware should face the Court Martial.
The Kampala Central Division MP, Hon. Muhammad Nsereko, opposed the clause allowing civilians to be tried in military courts and called for its deletion, albeit unsuccessfully.
Despite strong objections from the minority, Parliament passed the Bill with amendments.
