Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni has publicly refuted a ruling by the nation’s Supreme Court that deemed the practice of trying civilians in military courts unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had ruled in Attorney General v Kabaziguruka that the General Court Martial (GCM) does not possess the jurisdiction to try civilians, thus rendering military trials for civilians in violation of their constitutional rights.
The Court found specific sections of the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces (UPDF) Act—most notably Sections 2 and 179—to be in contravention of articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution of Uganda. These articles ensure trial by independent and impartial courts and exclude military tribunals from trying civilians, who are untrained in legal procedures and are primarily intended for military discipline. Nevertheless, President Museveni responded to the ruling by describing it as “wrong” and stressed the importance of military trials in maintaining national stability and discipline, especially for civilians found with firearms.
In his remarks, Museveni questioned why civilians should arm themselves with guns illegal under Ugandan law, asserting that such individuals should be held accountable in military courts because these forums are specifically aimed at addressing firearm-related misconduct. He further noted, “We cannot and will not abandon this useful instrument [military courts] for stability.”
The President’s statement has drawn attention from various legal bodies and human rights organizations. The Law Society of Uganda praised the Supreme Court’s decision as a progressive move to prevent the misuse of military courts to suppress civilian dissent. It urged government agencies to comply with the ruling by releasing civilians currently detained for military trials and transitioning all related cases to civilian courts. Human Rights Watch has also hailed the decision as crucial in safeguarding the right to a fair trial in Uganda.
Despite these responses, Museveni maintains that judicial rulings do not govern the nation; he suggests instead that governance should lean on laws passed by Parliament or constitutional amendments achieved through public referenda, reflecting the people’s will. This ongoing tension between executive power and the judiciary highlights the complex legal landscape in Uganda, attracting international attention and concern.
For further coverage, visit JURIST.