By Spy Uganda
Parliament is set to debate and possibly pass the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025 on Tuesday, May 20, as per the Order Paper for the 34th Sitting of the 3rd Meeting of the 4th Session of the 11th Parliament. However, the Bill has sparked widespread protest from both Members of Parliament and civil society, particularly over provisions allowing the General Court Martial to try civilians.
The proposed amendments—tabled by Defence Minister Jacob Oboth and backed by Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka—aim to redefine the structure, jurisdiction, and independence of military courts. One of the most controversial aspects is Clause 30, which allows civilians to be tried in the General Court Martial under “exceptional circumstances.”
These include:
- Accompanying Defence Forces on active duty
- Agreements to be subject to military law
- Unlawful possession of arms or military equipment
- Aiding soldiers in serious crimes such as murder or treason
- Wearing military attire without authorization
Attorney General: Court Martial Not Barred From Trying Civilians
Attorney General Kiwanuka defended the government’s position, stating that the Supreme Court’s January 2025 judgment did not prohibit military courts from trying civilians. Instead, he said the Court questioned the composition and legal foundation of the Court Martial, not its jurisdiction.
“The Supreme Court did not say civilians cannot be tried in the General Court Martial,” Kiwanuka told Parliament’s Joint Committee on Legal and Defence Affairs. “It said the Court, as constituted, lacked the proper legal framework to do so.”
His comments were in response to MP Jonathan Odur (Erute South), who accused the government of misrepresenting the Court’s ruling to justify broader military jurisdiction over civilians.
“It appears the drafters created their own version of the judgment and used it here,” Odur said.
Opposition Pushback: ‘You Are Undermining the Constitution’
Opposition MPs, including Mathias Mpuuga (Nyendo-Mukungwe), expressed concern that the Bill violates Articles 28 and 44(c) of the Constitution, which protect the right to a fair trial in civilian courts.
“These amendments suggest the UPDF Act is now supreme, and the Constitution is subordinate,” Mpuuga said. “The ruling clearly stated such cases can be handled in civilian courts.”
Abdu Katuntu (Bugweri County) criticized what he termed the politicization of the Court Martial, arguing that the military court had overreached its mandate in recent years.
“You deviated from the law and used the Court for purposes it wasn’t intended for. If a civilian is found with artillery, yes, let them be tried by the Court Martial. But if a beret becomes an issue, you’re vulgarising the law.”
Mixed Opinions In Parliament
While some MPs opposed the Bill, others welcomed it, citing concerns about national security and the illegal circulation of firearms.
Jimbricky Norman Ochero (Labwor County) noted that regime changes often flood communities with guns, necessitating deterrent laws.
Chemaswet Kisosi (Soi County) added that the Court Martial plays a crucial role in maintaining military discipline.
However, Naboth Namanya (Rubabo County) questioned the logic behind a clause that classifies black shoes as exclusive military wear.
“I’m wearing black shoes, so are most MPs here—even the Minister,” he said. “Does this mean we’re all subject to military trial?”
Attorney General Kiwanuka clarified that the intent was to prevent confusion during security operations, not to criminalize ordinary fashion choices.
What’s Next?
The Bill is scheduled for Second Reading and Committee Stage on Tuesday. If passed, it would reshape Uganda’s military justice system and expand its jurisdiction—despite pushback from sections of the public and Parliament.
As the House prepares to debate the Bill, all eyes will be on whether Parliament will uphold constitutional protections or cement military courts’ power over civilian affairs.
