Uganda's Military Bill puts human rights at stake

Despite strong opposition and a Supreme Court ban, Uganda is moving forward with plans to introduce a new law that allows civilians to once again be tried on politically motivated charges and various other offences by military courts, allegedly to quell dissent, notes Legalbrief. The Bill has been drafted and is awaiting Cabinet approval before it is introduced in Parliament, Nobert Mao, the Minister for Justice & Constitutional Affairs, told Parliament on Thursday, according to TimesLIVE. The Bill will define ‘exceptional circumstances under which a civilian may be subject to military law’, he said. Human rights activists and opposition politicians have long accused President Yoweri Museveni's Government of using military courts to prosecute opposition leaders and supporters on politically motivated charges. The government denies the accusations. In January, Uganda's Supreme Court delivered a ruling that banned military prosecutions of civilians, which forced the government to transfer the trial of opposition politician and former presidential candidate Kizza Besigye to civilian courts. If successfully enacted, the new law could allow the government to take Besigye back to a military court martial. Besigye, a veteran political rival of Museveni, has been in detention for nearly five months on what his lawyers say are politically motivated charges. He was detained in neighbouring Kenya in November and subsequently transferred to Uganda, where he was initially charged in a military court martial with illegal possession of firearms, among other offences.

Full TimesLIVE report

Earlier in the week, Ugandan lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi petitioned the Supreme Court to block Parliament from debating the Bill, arguing that the move defies the recent landmark ruling, reports the Daily Monitor. In his petition, Mabirizi said the proposed UPDF (Amendment) Bill violates a 31 January Supreme Court ruling that barred military courts from trying both civilians and members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) for criminal offences. ‘The actions of Cabinet, Parliament and the UPDF in pursuing the reintroduction of court martials with criminal jurisdiction, whether over civilians or soldiers, amount to contempt of court,’ Mabirizi stated in his affidavit. The Supreme Court ruled that military courts lacked sufficient constitutional guarantees of independence and impartiality. Despite the court’s ruling, government is pushing ahead with legal changes. The Bill was reportedly drafted following two meetings between the ruling NRM party caucus and Museveni. Mabirizi noted that government officials, including Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi, openly criticised the court’s decision and vowed to overturn it. He argued that any such move undermined judicial authority and the Constitution itself. In their January ruling, a majority of seven Supreme Court justices led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, held that military courts lacked the independence needed for fair trials. The justices also advised the executive and legislature that any attempt to empower military courts would require constitutional amendments. They recommended the creation of superior courts within the military system under Article 129, and reforms that would guarantee judicial independence and fairness.

Full Daily Monitor report

Military courts, the front line of Uganda’s war on dissent, are helping entrench repression ahead of the 2026 elections, according to an Al Jazeera opinion arricle. Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s regional director for East and Southern Africa, states in the article that if the government’s antics were intended to silence dissenting voices, they have done just the opposite. 'Far from dissuading others from speaking up, these trials have sparked a national conversation on human rights and the role of the military. Since 2016, Uganda’s Supreme Court had delayed ruling on a case, brought by Michael Kabaziguruka, a former Member of Parliament, challenging the trial of civilians before military courts. Kabaziguruka, who was accused of treason, argued that his trial in a military tribunal violated fair trial rights. As a civilian, he contended he was not subject to military law. Besigye and his aide Hajj Obeid Lutale’s case gave renewed impetus to this. On 31 January, the Supreme Court ruled that trying civilians in military courts is unconstitutional, ordering that all ongoing or pending criminal trials involving civilians must immediately stop and be transferred to ordinary courts.' Chagutah points out that despite this ruling, Museveni and his son have vowed to continue using military courts in civilian trials. 'Besigye went on hunger strike for 10 days in protest against delays in transferring his case to an ordinary court. The case has now become a litmus test for Uganda’s military justice system ahead of the 2026 elections. Besigye and Lutale are not the only opposition politicians to face military justice. Tens of supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP), led by Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, have been convicted by military courts for various offences.' He says these include wearing NUP’s trademark red berets and other party attire that authorities claimed resembled military uniforms, despite their distinct differences. 'Numerous lesser-known political activists are facing charges in military courts, too. Over 1 000 civilians have been prosecuted in Uganda’s military courts since 2002 for offences such as murder and armed robbery.'

Chagutah notes that military trials of civilians flout international and regional standards. 'They open possibilities of a flurry of human rights violations, including coerced confessions, opaque processes, unfair trials and executions. For context, in 2005, the state amended the UPDF Act to create a legal framework which allowed the military to try civilians in military courts. It was no coincidence that these amendments happened as the military was trying civilians arrested between 2001 and 2004, including Kizza Besigye.' He says trying civilians in military courts violates Article 7 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the 2001 Principles and Guidelines on Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa. 'The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the region’s premier human rights body, has long condemned the practice in Uganda. Opposition to military justice has not just come from the usual quarters. Religious leaders expressed concern about Besigye’s continued detention after the Supreme Court ruling, as did Anita Among, speaker of Uganda’s Parliament and member of the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), who remarked: "Injustice to anyone is injustice to everybody. Today it is happening to Dr Besigye, tomorrow it will happen to any one of us".' Following the court order and widespread outcry, he says, Besigye and Lutale were transferred to a civilian court on 21 February. 'Besigye called off his hunger strike. They remain in detention, as does their lawyer. However, their transfer without release, in a process begun by an illegality, remains flawed. Despite the transfer of their case, scores more civilians have their cases still pending before military courts, with little hope that they will be transferred to civilian courts.' For this reason, Chagutah states in the Al Jazeera  opinion piece, 11 groups, including Amnesty Kenya, the Pan-African Lawyers Union, the Law Society of Kenya, the Kenya Human Rights Commission and Kenya Medical Practitioners, Pharmacists, and Dentists Union call for their immediate release. 'As Uganda approaches elections, it is evident that the military courts are now a tool in Museveni’s shed for use to silence dissent. It is time for Uganda to heed the Supreme Court ruling  – for now though, military justice is on trial, too.'

Full Al Jazeera report

Meanwhile, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has accused High Court Judge Rosette Comfort Kania of violating the law by denying bail to Besigye and Obeid Lutale, despite the two meeting all legal requirements. According to the Nile Post, Besigye and Lutale have now spent five months in detention following their alleged abduction from Nairobi, Kenya on 16 November 2024. Kania cited the seriousness of the charges and fears that their release could jeopardise ongoing investigations. But in a statement, ULS vice-president Asiimwe Anthony described the ruling as ‘fundamentally flawed and impeachable,’ accusing the judge of relying on speculation and paternalistic reasoning instead of legal precedent. He pointed to Kania’s claim that detention would protect the accused from ‘falling prey to the temptation to interfere with investigations,’ saying it lacked any legal justification. ‘This reasoning not only lacks legal basis but contradicts established jurisprudence on bail in Uganda,’ Asiimwe stated, citing previous rulings. Asiimwe warned that Kania’s decision amounted to judicial overreach, undermining judicial impartiality and public trust. The society announced plans to petition the Judicial Service Commission to hold Kania accountable. It also urged Besigye’s legal team to reapply for bail and engage the head of the Criminal Division to ‘rectify this miscarriage of justice’. ULS further called on the High Court to expedite a stay of execution application filed by its president Isaac Ssemakadde, along with a habeas corpus application for detained human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza. Besigye's legal team has signalled plans to appeal the decision.

Full Nile Post report