Connect with us

Published

on

🟨 The General Court Martial is a subordinate court of law, with specialized jurisdiction. This means that the military courts are under the ordinary courts of law.
🟨 Sections of the UPDF Act that grant military courts jurisdiction over capital offences are unconstitutional.
🟨 Military courts in Uganda do not contain any or sufficient constitutional guarantees and safeguards for them to exercise their judicial functions with independence and impartiality, which is a prerequisite for fair hearing.
🟨 Sections of the UPDF Act that confer jurisdiction for military courts to try persons subject to military law for civil and/or non-disciplinary offences are unconstitutional.
🟨 All charges, or ongoing criminal trials, or pending trials, before the court martial involving civilians must immediately cease and be transferred to the ordinary courts of law.
🟨 The judgment shall have no retrospective effect on any conviction made and sentences imposed before today, save where the conviction or sentence is being challenged in a court of law..
Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | Uganda’s Supreme Court has put to rest the debate on whether civilians can be tried in military courts. In an almost unanimous decision, the seven judges of the Supreme Court with a little variance ruled that military courts are not vested with the competency to try civilians.
Chief Justice Alfonse Owinyi-Dollo held that Court Martial judges do not have any requirement to have legal training and equated it to sending a person to the theatre to operate a patient when that person doesn’t have the requisite qualifications of a doctor to do an operation.
Owiny-Dollo held that even though court martial judges don’t have any legal qualifications, they try everything and anything including treason yet their decisions can’t be appealed. The Chief Justice also held that in the Court Martial even junior officers and bodyguards can also sit on the panel to try persons accused of all manner of offences such as treason.
To illustrate his point, the Chief Justice stated that even he who is fairly educated cannot be picked and taken to Mulago Hospital to conduct a childbirth operation or be picked to be a brigade Commander. The Chief Justice also took pain to explain the difference between being a service member, a former service member and those retired and the chain of command; saying that there is a stark contrast between those and therefore, they can’t be treated in the same way.
Owiny-Dollo recommended that, “All charges, or ongoing criminal trials, or pending trials, before the courts martial involving civilians  must immediately cease and be transferred to the ordinary courts of law with competent jurisdiction. This judgment shall have no retrospective effect on any conviction made,  and sentences imposed, prior to the date of this judgment; save where the conviction and sentence is being challenged in a Court of law.”
Owiny-Dollo also had an issue with how the members of the military court are chosen by the President on very short terms of one year which denies them the security of tenure that allows them to dispense justice without fear or favour.

 
Hence the lack of security of tenure naturally denies them the ability to be independent from the appointing authority like judges in the judiciary. The Chief Justice therefore noted that the fact of appointing officers of court without giving them security of tenure is unconstitutional. On the other hand, Owiny-Dollo noted that the Court Martial cannot provide adequate facilities for the preparation of defence by those appearing before them.
He noted that being able to prepare for a defence is part of a fair hearing and any court that can’t guarantee that, can claim to be a court. On the other hand, because the decisions of the Court Martial can’t be appealed outside the court-martial, Owiny-Dollo held that this makes them unlawful because any law that doesn’t give people a right to appeal is unconstitutional and as such can’t stand.
He further ruled that even the soldiers tried by the Court Martial their rights shouldn’t be violated by being tried by tribunals that lack the competency especially if the cases tried attract either a death sentence or a life imprisonment.
He blamed Parliament for the overzealous by creating laws that seem to attract conflicts among institutions of government. Consequently, he declared Sections of the UPDF Act that give military courts powers to try civilians are unconstitutional and therefore null and void. He directed that all the hearings in the Court Martial are unconstitutional and therefore should cease henceforth.
Before Owiny-Dollo read his ruling, four other Justices had already found that military courts not only lack the independence required of courts but are also not part of the courts of judicature.
Monica Mugenyi, Catherine Bamugemereire, Elizabeth Musoke and Percy Night Tuhaise, all held that the military courts are not independent courts of judicature that can fairly dispense justice. Like Owiny-Dollo, the four pointed out that the way the judges of the military courts are appointed, their lack of legal background and the security of their tenure is inadequate to guarantee independence.
 
In 2016, then Nakawa Division Member of Parliament Michael Kabaziguruka was arrested and charged in the General Court Martial for crimes related to illegal possession of firearms and conspiring against the security of the defence forces.
He challenged his trial in the General court martial in the Constitutional Court arguing that as a civilian, it was illegal to charge him in a military court. The court issued its decision in July 2021.
In their ruling which was decided by three justices to two, the court held that there were many impediments to the court martial making fair and independent judgements. Justices Kenneth Kakuru [RIP], Remmy Kasule [retired] and Hellen Obura held that the military courts not only lack the independence that is required of any court but also assumed powers that the constitution gave to the judicial branch of government.
Kakuru who wrote the lead judgement observed that the aim of the UPDF Act was meant for those in active military service and should never have been expanded to include civilians.
“The UPDF Act in my view was never intended to be an Act of general application. It is a statute of special and limited application. Article 210 of the Constitution from which Parliament derived the power to enact the impugned law, is itself very restrictive. That power only relates to UPDF and UPDF alone. It does not extend to regulation or adjudication of crime set out under other legislation. Those functions are provided for in other Articles of the Constitution that establish the Judiciary, the Police and Prisons Service and the Directorate of Public Prosecutions among others… Section 197 of the UPDF Act clearly states that “there shall be a Court Martial for the defence forces,” Kakuru’s judgement reads in part.
 
It is this judgement that the Attorney General who was sued in his capacity as the representative of government appealed in the Supreme Court arguing that the judges of the Constitutional Court have erred in law and fact in holding as they did that military courts are not clothed with powers to try civilians.
Today’s judgement is going to come as a relief to Dr Kizza Besigye, Obeid Lutale and other National Unity Platform supporters who are being tried in the military courts

Supreme Court Rules: Military Courts Lack Authority to Try Civilians

News

The Price of a Political Ticket: Has Uganda’s Opposition Become a Marketplace for Power?

Published

on

By Amiri Wabusimba.
Opposition politics in Uganda, as in much of Africa, finds itself entangled in a paradox: parties that demand free, fair, and transparent elections from the ruling regime often fail to uphold the same democratic principles within their own ranks. The upcoming 2026 general elections and the Kawempe North by-election, triggered by the death of Hon. Muhammad Ssegirinya, have once again laid bare the deep-seated contradictions within Uganda’s opposition. These events serve as a crucial litmus test: Can opposition parties offer a credible alternative to the status quo, or are they merely mirroring the very political dysfunction they seek to replace?
 
National Unity Platform (NUP) recently introduced debates in its primaries for the Kawempe North by-election an unprecedented move that initially raised hopes of a shift towards transparency. Yet, the real question remains: Was this a sincere commitment to internal democracy, or a one-time spectacle to appease critics? As the Ugandan proverb goes, “The more the monkey climbs the tree, the more it exposes its nakedness.” If the debate was merely a political show, then the closer NUP and other opposition parties claim to be to democratic ideals, the more their internal contradictions will be exposed.
 
Despite receiving applications from nine aspirants and following their internal process, NUP ultimately fronted Luyimbazi Elias Nalukoola, a former Democratic Party (DP) stalwart and legal advisor. His selection has sparked controversy, raising concerns over whether the decision was guided by ideological conviction or transactional politics. The pattern is familiar: across Africa, opposition parties routinely prioritize strategic alliances over grassroots representation, diluting their founding principles in the name of political expediency.
 
Uganda’s opposition struggles mirror broader trends across the continent. In Kenya, Raila Odinga’s Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) has frequently been accused of sidelining grassroots leaders in favor of well-connected elites, with party primaries marred by allegations of favoritism. In Nigeria, defections between the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) are so common that ideological consistency has become meaningless, as politicians hop between parties based on personal gain. Ugandan opposition, particularly NUP, risks following this trajectory with foot soldiers (ordinary men and women) who have faced police brutality and persecution to popularize the party now find themselves sidelined in favor of political elites, lawyers, and businessmen with the right connections.
 
One of the biggest threats to opposition credibility is the increasing monetization of party endorsements. Allegations of “cash-for-tickets” politics have surfaced within NUP, with claims that aspirants with deep pockets are prioritized over those with genuine grassroots appeal. Nalukoola’s selection for Kawempe North has raised similar concerns. Was he chosen based on ideological alignment with NUP, or was his selection the product of financial and political transactions? If opposition parties continue to engage in opaque selection processes, they risk losing the moral high ground against ruling parties they accuse of electoral malpractice. Just like a Ugandan proverb “A man who points at another’s house with a dirty hand forgets that his own house is burning.” If opposition parties criticize the ruling regime for corruption and lack of transparency but fail to clean up their own houses, they will struggle to inspire confidence among voters.
 
The introduction of debates in the NUP primaries marked a potential shift in Uganda’s political culture. But will this model be replicated in future elections, or was it a one-time event designed to project an image of transparency? If NUP is serious about fostering democracy, debates should become a mandatory part of primaries rather than an isolated case. However, Uganda’s political history suggests that internal democratic reforms are often abandoned when they threaten entrenched power structures. What worked in Kawempe North may not necessarily work in other constituencies, particularly rural areas where different political dynamics are at play. If debates disappear in other regions, it will confirm suspicions that the exercise was merely a performance tailored for urban voters.
 
Opposition parties in Uganda must recognize that their survival depends not just on their ability to challenge incumbents but also on their ability to govern themselves democratically. Transparent internal debates, rigorous candidate vetting, and meaningful grassroots inclusion are essential if opposition movements are to remain credible. The real backbone of any political movement is not in boardrooms or legal chambers but in the streets, the markets, the ghettos, and the villages where ordinary Ugandans have put their lives on the line for change. Yet, if they continue to be sidelined in favor of political elites, opposition parties may soon find themselves without a dedicated support base.
 
As Uganda moves toward the 2026 elections, the electorate is watching closely. The foot soldiers who carried the opposition on their backs will not be fooled by rhetoric alone. They demand and deserve a say in the direction of the movement they built with blood, sweat, and tears. If opposition parties fail to recognize this, they will soon discover that the true barrier to change is not just the ruling party it is their own internal contradictions. The Kawempe North by-election is more than just a local contest it is a defining moment for Uganda’s opposition. Will they honor their foot soldiers, or will they continue to betray them for short-term political gains? The answer will determine not just the outcome of the by-election but the future of opposition politics in Uganda and beyond.
 
If opposition leaders fail to institutionalize transparency, voters will see through the façade and if they continue down the path of political elitism and financial influence, they may unwittingly secure the very status quo they claim to oppose. In the end, true political transformation will not come from speeches or televised debates alone it will come from genuine accountability, both within parties and in the broader political arena. For Uganda’s opposition, the stakes have never been higher. The time for self-correction is now. The electorate is watching, and history will judge.
 
Amiri Wabusimba is a diplomatic Scholar, Journalist, political analyst and Human Right activist. Tel: +56775103895 email: Wabusimbaa@gmail.com

The Price of a Political Ticket: Has Uganda’s Opposition Become a Marketplace for Power?

Continue Reading

News

Besigye’s Life is In Danger , legal team demands urgent medical transfer

Published

on

Lawyers of the jailed veteran opposition politician, Dr Kizza Besigye have raised an alarm over the health of their client.
They said on Wednesday that Besigye’s health is deteriorating after paying him a visit at Luzira maximum security where he has been incarcerated since November, 2024.
Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, who led the defence team to Luzira Prison, said Besigye could lose his life if he does not receive special treatment which is not available at Luzira prison.

“Since Friday, he has not moved out of his cell; reason, he is not feeling well,” said Lukwago.

“Besigye has been experiencing episodes of some drastic spike in blood pressure levels which are not explained, and the unfortunate bit is that he has not been given the opportunity of seeing his personal physician,” Lukwago emphasised.

“It is only the in-house doctors who have been coming to monitor the situation, but unfortunately, they are ill-equipped. They don’t have the necessary equipment that would be necessary to examine him and get to understand what is really bothering him,” Lukwago, a human rights lawyer, added.
Besigye together with political associate Hajj Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya are detained at Luzira prison on charges of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, and treachery.
They were arrested from a residential apartment complex in Nairobi where Ugandan officials say he had gone to meet persons with the view of mobilising resources and logistics to destabilise Uganda.

Besigye is also battling another case of inciting the public when he in 2022 led a demonstration downtown Kampala against high commodity prices.
He was scheduled to appear before Buganda Road Court on Wednesday for the hearing of the case but was not produced to Court by prison authorities.
He instead wrote a brief note to the Magistrate informing him that he was unwell which compelled the Magistrate to adjourn the case to Friday.
Besigye is reportedly on a hunger strike over failure by the government to release him from jail despite the Supreme Court ruling that declared the trial of civilians in military courts illegal.
Besigye and Lutale were remanded to Luzira prison by the General Court Martial.
They were scheduled to appear again in the General Court Martial on February 3, but on January 31, the Supreme Court ruled against the trial of civilians in military courts.
The Supreme Court also ruled that the General Court Martial is not a competent court of law, but rather a disciplinary unit formed to discipline errant serving officers of the UPDF.
“Right now, Besigye is in illegal incarceration. He maintains that he is in a safe house. He is not on remand, because there is no remand warrant from any court,” said Lukwago.
“The proceedings before the general court martial were terminated by the Supreme Court, so there are no pending charges against him, no ongoing proceedings before any court, no order of remand, he is not a convict. So, his status is unique,” Lukwago emphasised.
Legal conundrum
Following the Supreme Court ruling and failure by the government to release Besigye and Lutale, their lawyers filed a habeas corpus application before the High Court to summon the Attorney General and the Commissioner General of prisons to explain why Besigye and Lutale were still behind bars.
The application is pending hearing.
However, the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Norbert Mao, told Parliament last week that the Supreme Court did not issue a release order for Besigye and his co-accused.
“The Supreme Court said bring the prisoners to the proper court. It did not hear the cases; so how could it determine them? We should not excite the public that it should be a release,” said Mao.
To allay MPs’ concerns on the delayed implementation of the court ruling, Mao said the responsible government authorities are taking action.“Concerning implementation, the courts do not implement their own decision. I do not know whether court orders were extracted but there are procedures to be followed to transfer cases to the civilian courts,” he added.
He castigated those attacking the prisons authorities for the delayed transfer of civilians facing trial in the General Court Martial, advising that the role lies with the Directorate of Public Prosecution (DPP).
Life in danger
Meanwhile, Lukwago reiterated that if Besigye is not released from jail, he might not survive.
“All we can tell you is that Besigye’s life is in danger. They are not ready to evacuate to any other facility with enough capacity. He has no control over his health right now,” said Lukwago.
“Besigye is in the hands of the prison authorities, and we are asking them to evacuate him, take him to a facility with capacity to deal with his condition. They should immediately transfer him to any facility that can handle him outside of Luzira prison. Short of that, we may get bad news. That is our worry.”
Besigye is under solitary confinement, and according to Lukwago, he has not moved out of his cell since Friday

Besigye’s Life is In Danger , legal team demands urgent medical transfer

Continue Reading

News

Abu Mukasa’s Alleged Crackdown on Journalists Sparks Outcry Over Press Freedom in Uganda

Published

on

Abubaker Mukasa Muyunga, commonly known as Abu Mukasa, has come under scrutiny for his alleged involvement in silencing critical journalistic voices in Uganda. The crackdown on media freedom began in June 2024 with the arrest and imprisonment of Grape Vine online journalists Alirabaki Sengooba and Dickson Mubiru. The duo was detained after publishing a story implicating the Vitol licenser, UNOC, in a parliamentary corruption scandal.
Sources reveal that a high-ranking parliamentary official, whose identity remains undisclosed, was infuriated by the article and played a role in the journalists’ incarceration. The official reportedly sent intermediaries to Luzira Murchison Bay Prison, urging the journalists to apologize in exchange for their release. However, the journalists refused, suspecting a ploy to force them into admitting guilt for crimes they did not commit.
Despite further attempts by security personnel to broker a deal on behalf of Abu Mukasa and the parliamentary official, the journalists stood firm, choosing to endure their imprisonment until their eventual release on bail after a protracted legal battle. The Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) played a pivotal role in securing their freedom.
The controversy deepened in December 2024 when Richard Wanambwa, a journalist with Eagle Online, was arrested on charges of demanding money and property with menace. Wanambwa, who pleaded not guilty, was arraigned before Nakawa Chief Magistrate Christine Nantege and remanded to Luzira Prison. The charges were brought by Abu Mukasa and Sheikh Muhammad Bin Juma Maktoum, a prominent investor linked to Vitol and UNOC.
Prosecution documents allege that Wanambwa demanded 50,000,50,000,30,000, and 72 million shillings from individuals connected to Abu Mukasa, including Alexander Kibandama, the brother of Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa. The case has drawn widespread criticism, with observers condemning the alleged misuse of state machinery to target journalists.
Richard Birivumbuka, the prosecutor representing Abu Mukasa and Sheikh Maktoum, has been accused of employing underhanded tactics to frustrate Wanambwa’s legal defense. During a court session on January 29, 2025, Birivumbuka successfully amended the charge sheet to include nine additional counts, including hate speech under the Computer Misuse Act. He also attempted to open multiple cases against Wanambwa in different courts, leading to a heated exchange with a magistrate over procedural irregularities.
Birivumbuka’s actions have drawn parallels to his role in the high-profile case of the late Kawempe North MP Muhammad Ssegirinya, who was repeatedly denied bail despite deteriorating health. Ssegirinya’s death in custody sparked outrage, with many blaming the judicial system for his untimely demise.
As Wanambwa’s case continues, human rights organizations and press freedom advocates have condemned the alleged harassment of journalists. The Uganda Journalists Association and the Human Rights Network for Journalists are providing legal support to Wanambwa, whose bail application is set for consideration on February 11, 2025.
This unfolding saga highlights growing concerns about press freedom and the rule of law in Uganda, with critics accusing powerful figures like Abu Mukasa of using their influence to suppress dissent. The case has also raised questions about the government’s commitment to upholding human rights, particularly as Uganda remains a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will delve deeper into the role of security agencies in perpetuating these alleged injustices and the broader implications for Uganda’s democracy.

Abu Mukasa’s Alleged Crackdown on Journalists Sparks Outcry Over Press Freedom in Uganda

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024