UPDF Amendment Bill sparks legal, political uproar

The passing of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025, by parliament has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts, opposition figures, and human rights defenders.

The Bill now awaits presidential assent to officially become law. Critics say the new legislation undermines constitutionalism, due process, and human rights, especially regarding the trial of civilians in military courts.

They argue that parliament missed a historic opportunity to fix long-standing abuses within the military justice system.

“The UPDF Amendment Bill has been forced down the throats of Ugandans. It is an attack on the rule of law and constitutional order,” said Alice Alaso, acting national coordinator of the Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) and a former legislator.

“It legalizes the kidnap and torture of civilians under the guise of military justice,” Alaso warned, adding that the law could backfire on its own architects, just like the Public Order Management Act (POMA) did in the past.

Alaso said parliament’s actions amounted to a direct contribution to political instability and human rights violations in Uganda. She pledged to support efforts aimed at overturning what she called a “bad law.”

While some MPs welcomed aspects of the Bill such as reforms to command structures, pensions, and medical services, Bugweri MP Abdu Katuntu insisted the trial of civilians in military courts should have been resolved before the amendments were passed.

“The whole debate boiled down to one issue: civilians in military courts,” Katuntu said.

He expressed concern that Supreme court judgments on the matter had been inconsistently interpreted. Katuntu said different judges gave different arguments, even though they reached similar conclusions and that confusion should have been cleared up before passing the Bill.

Katuntu also emphasized that justice for soldiers is equally important and that military courts must uphold professional standards and fairness.

“We are not just protecting civilians. Soldiers too deserve justice,” he said.

Legal experts have raised concerns about disparities in the rights of appeal between civilians and soldiers under the new law. Civilians accused of crimes like murder are allowed to appeal up to the Supreme court, while soldiers tried for the same offences in military courts are limited to a single appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Jude Byamukama, managing partner at JByamukama & Co. Advocates said you cannot have two systems of justice where civilians enjoy full appeal rights and soldiers don’t. This, he said, violates the principle of equality before the law.

Byamukama also noted that the UPDF Act should have been cross-referenced with the Human Rights Enforcement Act, allowing accused persons in military courts to benefit from human rights protections. His proposals were not included in the final Bill.

Lack of consultation

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) declined to appear before parliament’s joint committee chaired by Stephen Baka Mugabi, citing insufficient time to review the Bill. The ULS has previously taken legal action against the government on similar issues.

“Article 38 of the constitution gives the citizens the right to people to participate in public affairs. And in many countries, our equivalent of article 38 of the constitution has been interpreted to mean that when parliament is enacting legislation, there should be sufficient opportunity for citizens to make submissions,” said Byamukama.

Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) vice president and lawyer Yusuf Nsibambi echoed these concerns, calling the process “unconstitutional” and “ill-motivated.” He argued that the Supreme court had explicitly stated that military courts lack the jurisdiction to try civilians, branding them as disciplinary bodies for the military, not courts of law.

Nsimbabi said it is not the role of parliament to legitimize bad laws because the Supreme court decision made it clear that civilians do not belong in military courts. With opposition parties, civil society, and legal practitioners rallying against the legislation, many expect the law to be challenged in the Constitutional and Supreme courts if signed into law.

They argue that the lack of appeal rights for soldiers, continued civilian trials by military courts, and the hurried process all violate Uganda’s constitutional safeguards.