On February 7, 2025, the National Resistance Movement (NRM) parliamentary caucus convened at State House, Entebbe, and resolved to withdraw the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2024.
The decision followed a landmark ruling by the Supreme court that questioned the constitutional mandate of military courts to try civilians. The UPDF Amendment Bill, 2024, which was under review by parliament’s committee on Defense, aimed to align the existing Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Act with new government policies and evolving command, control and administrative structures within the military.
It also sought to improve the welfare of Defence Forces personnel, enhance disability compensation, and decentralize the Pension Authority from the ministry of Public Service to the ministry of Defence and Veteran Affairs. However, the bill’s progression was halted following the Supreme court’s ruling, prompting the NRM to reconsider its approach.
SUPREME COURT RULING ON MILITARY COURTS
The caucus’s decision comes in the wake of a Supreme court judgment that halted all proceedings in the General Court Martial. Justice Catherine Bamugemereire declared the court a military tribunal lacking the constitutional authority to try civilians. She argued that the structure and procedures of the court-martial violate the principles of fairness and impartiality enshrined in Uganda’s Constitution.
Justice Bamugemereire further ruled that when soldiers commit offenses against civilians, they should be tried in civil courts rather than military tribunals. Echoing her concerns, Justice Monica Mugenyi also criticized the General Court Martial for its lack of independence and impartiality, deeming it inconsistent with the Constitution.
NRM CAUCUS RESPONDS TO LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
Following the Supreme court’s ruling, the NRM caucus agreed to withdraw the bill to allow the attorney general time to draft new proposals in line with the court’s decision.
Denis Hamson Obua, the government chief whip and chairperson of the NRM Parliamentary caucus, stated, “NRM Caucus has agreed that the UPDF Amendment Bill currently in parliament be withdrawn so that the attorney general is given time to draft new proposals in line with the Supreme court ruling. An Extraordinary Caucus meeting will be convened to discuss these proposals.”
The caucus’s resolution aligns with President Yoweri Museveni’s directive for the attorney general to introduce amendments that could potentially counter the Supreme court ruling and clarify the role of military courts in Uganda.
PRESIDENT MUSEVENI CRITI- CIZES SUPREME COURT DECISION
In response to the ruling, President Yoweri Museveni expressed his disappointment, calling the decision a “wrong” judgment that undermines Uganda’s security.
“I was sorry to hear of the wrong decision by the Supreme court regarding the trial of armed civilians by the Military Court Martial. This method, which we freedom fighters support, reinforces the civilian judicial system in defending our people against criminals armed with guns,” Museveni stated.
Despite his disappointment, Museveni acknowledged that the chief justice had suggested possible adjustments that could allow military courts to function within legal parameters. He also noted that even judges who ruled against the practice made observations that might be considered in future legal amendments.
“The country is not governed by judges but by Ugandans who are old enough to vote. When it comes to constitutional matters and legislation, we govern ourselves through referenda, constitutional amendments, or parliamentary decisions,” Museveni added.
The president directed the attorney general to propose constitutional amendments or revisions to existing laws to clarify the role of military courts and prevent future judicial interference. He referred to military courts as a “useful self-protection instrument” for Uganda’s national security.
GEN MUHOOZI KAINERUGABA CRITICIZES RULING
Speaking at the 44th Tarehe Sita celebrations at Kasasa town council grounds in Kyotera district, Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba criticized the Supreme court’s ruling, calling it both unfortunate and unacceptable.
According to the UPDF website, Gen Muhoozi warned that the ruling could undermine the military’s ability to maintain discipline, professionalism and combat effectiveness—qualities for which Uganda’s military is recognized globally.
“We were shocked to receive a judgment from the Supreme court that effectively halts all trials conducted by military courts,” Muhoozi stated. “The UPDF and its predecessor, the National Resistance Army (NRA), provided a lasting solution to the tyranny, killings and lawlessness that had plagued Uganda for so long.”
Gen Muhoozi suggested that the ruling could weaken the military’s ability to respond swiftly to armed threats within civilian settings, potentially compromising public safety and the rule of law.
LAWMAKERS REACT TO WITHDRAWAL OF UPDF AMENDMENT BILL
The Supreme court ruling also influenced the National Resistance Movement (NRM)’s recent decision to withdraw the UPDF Amendment Bill, 2024, from parliamentary review. This bill sought to align the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Act with new government policies and administrative changes but faced constitutional challenges following the court’s judgment.
In an interview for this story, Busiro East MP Medard Lubega Sseggona criticized the NRM’s approach and raised concerns about selective compliance with the court’s ruling.
“I am not yet aware of the contents of their proposed bill, but I am certain they would not be reckless enough to introduce legislation that seeks to override or interfere with a Supreme court judgment,” Sseggona said.
He emphasized that while it is legitimate to seek the court’s advisory opinion, the government’s inconsistent adherence to legal rulings is problematic.
“What is frustrating is their selective compliance. As it stands, individuals remain in custody without valid legal authority or a court order. This is because the Court Martial’s decision to remand them was nullified,” he added.
CONCERNS OVER CONTINUED DETENTIONS AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS
Sseggona further argued that the Court Martial has deliberately disobeyed the law by failing to transfer case files to civil courts as directed by the Supreme court. He pointed out that political prisoners and civilians previously charged under military courts remain detained despite the absence of valid legal orders.
“The proper course of action would have been to retrieve those files and lodge a complaint with the police,” Sseggona said.
“Currently, no criminal case numbers exist for Dr Kizza Besigye, Obed Lutale, National Unity Platform supporters, or the soldiers in question. The criminal case numbers under the UPDF have been quashed, and the government has failed to transfer the cases to civil courts.”
He added that individuals remain in prison solely under the orders of the attorney general, despite no legal authority to justify their continued detention.
“A responsible and intelligent approach would have ensured a smooth and organized transition, beginning with the immediate release of all political prisoners,” he said.
Sseggona argued that given the length of their imprisonment, any conviction at this point would likely amount to time already served.
PROPOSED LEGAL ACTIONS AND SOLUTIONS
“If I were handling this matter, I would release Dr Besigye and Lutale, as they are not flight risks. If the state still wishes to pursue their cases, the police should properly organize the case files and either summon them or arrest them. In criminal cases, a charge could be prepared overnight, allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) to bring them before a court of law and subsequently have them remanded,” he suggested.
Sseggona also addressed the issue of soldiers charged in military courts.
“As for the soldiers, I would release and immediately re-arrest them. Upon re-arrest, they would be presented before the police or kept within the barracks under strict orders not to leave without authorization, since soldiers follow orders, whether lawful or not,” he said.
MPS ADVOCATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULING
Mukono North MP and lawyer Abdallah Kiwanuka emphasized the importance of aligning any new legislation with the Supreme court’s directives. He noted that the original bill, introduced in parliament just weeks before the court’s ruling, did not address issues related to the Court Martial.
“We should handle these matters once and for all. To that effect, the bill should be withdrawn, and a new one introduced to incorporate the concerns raised by the Supreme court,” Kiwanuka stated.
He stressed that any new bill should not be designed to circumvent the court’s decision but, rather, to align with its legal concerns.
“Article 92 of the Constitution clearly states that Parliament cannot make laws to override or nullify court decisions, and I am confident that the government is aware of this,” he added.
LEGAL EXPERTS WARN AGAINST UNDERMINING THE JUDICIARY
Human rights lawyer George Musisi echoed Kiwanuka’s sentiments, emphasizing that the Supreme court ruling explicitly tasked the attorney general with ensuring the necessary legal amendments are made.
“Indeed, there is a need to change the law. If the NRM caucus aims to amend the legislation in line with the court ruling, there is no issue. The problem arises if they attempt to reintroduce provisions that the court found unconstitutional. That would amount to legislation designed to undermine the court’s judgment,” Musisi argued.
He acknowledged that while it was a positive step to have the bill introduced in parliament, its withdrawal for revision was necessary to incorporate the court’s key recommendations. These include proposals such as ensuring that the Court Martial includes qualified lawyers and judges, and addressing other structural reforms that may require constitutional amendments.
Musisi cautioned against premature speculation regarding the contents of the revised bill but warned that any attempt to reinstate military trials for civilians would be unconstitutional and subject to legal challenges.
WALUBIRI: AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS THE ONLY WAY
Senior counsel and political analyst Peter Walubiri also weighed in on the debate, stating, “I would assume they intend to align the Act with the Constitution. However, the Supreme court’s ruling is far-reaching; it essentially dismantles the existing Court Martial structure as envisioned by President Museveni and his son,” Walubiri stated.
He explained that if the government aims to retain the Court Martial’s authority to try civilians, it would require not just amending the UPDF Act, but amending the Constitution itself, particularly the chapters governing the judiciary and fundamental rights.
“The judges made it clear that Court Martials and military tribunals are primarily disciplinary bodies for UPDF personnel. The maximum penalty they can impose is dismissal from the force. They cannot hand down custodial or other criminal sentences,” he emphasized.
BALANCING MILITARY DISCIPLINE AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
According to Walubiri, the only legitimate way to position the court Martial as a judicial body would be to transform it into a division of the High Court under civilian jurisdiction. However, he argued that President Museveni opposes this move because it would limit his control over the military judiciary, preventing the Court Martial from trying not only soldiers but also civilians.
“The Supreme court has ruled against that practice, even for soldiers,” Walubiri said. “Soldiers cannot be tried in a Court Martial for offenses beyond disciplinary breaches. Unless they amend Article 28 of the Constitution to allow for a court that is neither free nor fair, and one that does not dispense justice, any amendment to the UPDF Act alone will be meaningless.”