Ugandan MPs Back Controversial UPDF Amendment Bill, Reinstating Military Trials for Civilians » The Hoima Post –
The Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill, 2025 is set to sail through parliament, with legislators okaying civilians to be tried in military courts.
The bill seeks to amend the Uganda Peoples Defence Forces Act to streamline the composition of the organs and structures of the defence forces; to provide for the definition of service offence, court martial, military court and reserve force; to provide for the restructuring and reestablishment of the courts martial in defence forces in accordance with the Constitution; and related matters.
The majority of Members of Parliament on the joint committee of Legal and Parliamentary Affairs and Defence and Internal Affairs have recommended the amendment of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Act 2005 to, among others, allow for the trial of civilians in military courts.
The Supreme Court on January 31 this year had ruled that trying civilians in military courts was unconstitutional. This ruling irked President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni as it led to the withdrawal of the UPDF amendment bill that had already been tabled in parliament in December last year.
In the new amendments, the trial of civilians was reintroduced, and last week, this bill was sent to the two committees for scrutiny.
In their report presented to parliament on Tuesday, the majority of the MPs who wholly belong to the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) agreed to the amendment with slight adjustments.
According to the report, although there were divergent opinions on what exactly the Supreme Court said in regard to the trial of civilians in the military courts, it concluded that this trial can occur, albeit in exceptional circumstances, for as long as there are safeguards on fairness.
“The Committee acknowledges that military trials apply to officers and personnel within the defence forces, but they also address elements of national security. As a result, civilians can engage in actions that usually impact national security, which are typically reserved for those under military law. The reasoning for establishing offences in the UPDF Act that hold civilians criminally liable is to safeguard national security,” the committee noted.
The committee, however, noted that the exceptional circumstances that the Supreme Court and the bill talk about were not properly defined and hence are ripe for abuse. “The committee reviewed the exceptional circumstances outlined in the Bill and determined that certain aspects require revision to align with the legality principle.”
“Specifically, the Committee identifies that paragraph (d), which allows the trial of civilians in military courts for aiding and abetting individuals subject to military law in committing serious crimes such as murder, aggravated robbery, intent to murder, kidnapping, treason, misprision of treason, or cattle rustling,” needs adjustment since it fails to specify the elements of these offences. This omission compromises the legality principle defined in…the Constitution,” the report notes in part.
The committee also observed that although the bill also provides for the legal qualification of the members of the court and the setting up of the legal department, these are not sufficient to guarantee judicial independence.
“The Committee noted that the roles and functions of the Military Court Department are vague, leaving gaps in oversight and accountability intended to oversee military courts, the structure risks undermining judicial independence. The MCD includes the head of the General Court Martial as chair, along with a military prosecutor, defence counsel, and chairpersons of military courts. This overlap of judicial and prosecutorial roles is seen as a violation of natural justice principles. It is the right to a fair hearing by compromising the impartiality of the court,” the committee noted.
The Committee also took exception to the clause that allows the Chief of Defence Forces to confer a temporary rank to the chairperson of the Court Martial equal to that of the defendant if he/she was of a higher rank.
“While intended to maintain order, this mechanism may introduce bureaucratic delays and allow manipulation of the justice process. For instance, the CDF could delay rank assignment, impeding the prosecution of senior officers. The temporary rank with its associated privileges may also incentivise judicial officers to prolong proceedings to retain benefits, compromising timely and impartial justice,” the committee noted.
The committee also recommended that all presiding officers of the courts-martial should be given a five-year renewable term rather than the three years as proposed by the bill. They also want the Judicial Service Commission to play a bigger role than that proposed by the bill. Currently, all members are appointed by the High Command from a list it generates in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission (ISC).
This system grants the High Command broad powers to appoint members for specific trials, raising serious doubts about the members’ independence and vulnerability to external influence. The idea of consulting the JSC does not explicitly define the role of the JSC in the process of appointment.
The committee argues that the JSC should be given a stronger role to vet presiding officers who wield judicial power,” the report notes.
Meanwhile, there are two minority reports: one authored by Erute South MP Jonathan Odur and the other from 21 MPs, although signed by 13 led by Busiro East MP Medard Lubega Sseggona.
In Odur’s minority report, he notes that the entire bill is riddled with illegalities, right from the way it was introduced to parliament.
“The minority finds that parliament proceeding to consider the clauses of the UPDF Bill 2025 touching the subject matter of trial of civilians in court martial undermines the core tenets of the rule of law and doctrine of mutual respect for separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary,” Odur’s report notes.
It cautions members of parliament from giving such broad powers to the President because they don’t know who it will be even as early as 2026.
“Let it sink in our minds that at any one point soon in our lifetime, Uganda will have another President other than H.E. Museveni. The next President, as per the law, shall be the Commander in Chief (Boss of the Court Martial). This House may have already noticed the following names, in no particular order of chances being discussed in the public domain as potential future Presidents starting 2026 and beyond; Hon. Akena Jimmy James Michael Obote, Hon. Kyagulanyi Sentamu Robert, Hon. Amuriat Oboi Patrick, Gen. Kainerugaba Muhoozi, Gen Mugisha Muntu Greggory, Hon. Nobert Moa, Rt. Hon Anita Among Annet, Col (Rtd) Dr. Warren Kizza Besigye, Hon. Nandala Mafabi Nathan, etc. Please reflect carefully on each one of them; their soberness, fidelity to the law, ideology, actions, sentiments, service record, etc., and imagine what each one of them is capable of using such provisions in the Bill,” Odur noted.
On the other hand, the other minority report raised eight reasons why it objects to the bill.
These include; contravention of the constitution, illegality in military trials, offending the doctrine of separation of powers, lack of public participation, unconstitutional expansion of Military Court jurisdiction; constitutional limitations on Parliament’s powers; lack of independence and impartiality of the courts martial and non compliance with judicial advisory orders of the Supreme Court.
“The minority unanimously think that the General Court Martial and other military courts do not have constitutional jurisdiction to try civilians or adjudicate non disciplinary criminal offences even if committed by members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces under article 210 of the 1995 Constitution, Parliament’s power to legislate for military courts is strictly confined to matters of discipline and removal of UPDF members. Military courts are therefore internal disciplinary bodies, not general criminal courts, and cannot override the constitutional mandate that all Criminal justice, including fair trial rights under Articles 28 and 44, lies exclusively with the ordinary Courts of Judicature,” the minority report reads in part.
By the time of filing this report, parliament was still debating this bill. It is expected to pass given that it has the support of the majority of NRM members
Related
https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-mps-back-controversial-updf-amendment-bill-reinstating-military-trials-for-civilians/
https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-mps-back-controversial-updf-amendment-bill-reinstating-military-trials-for-civilians/ , hoimapost.co.ug
https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-mps-back-controversial-updf-amendment-bill-reinstating-military-trials-for-civilians/ , https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-mps-back-controversial-updf-amendment-bill-reinstating-military-trials-for-civilians/ ,
hoimapost.co.ug , https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fugandan-mps-back-controversial-updf-amendment-bill-reinstating-military-trials-for-civilians%2F
How Museveni’s Regime Is Systematically Dismantling Uganda’s Democracy
By Alexander Luyima | Special Correspondent
KAMPALA – The government’s proposed amendment to the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act has sparked outrage among legal scholars, human rights defenders, and opposition leaders, who say it marks a dangerous turning point in the country’s governance.
The UPDF Amendment Bill—presented as a response to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling barring military trials of civilians—has instead expanded military powers and entrenched the very practices the court condemned.
> “This isn’t compliance—it’s contempt,” said Nicholas Opiyo, a leading human rights lawyer. “The court said military trials for civilians are unconstitutional. This bill doesn’t fix that—it entrenches it.”
Under the proposed changes, military courts will now have authority over offenses such as treason and terrorism—charges commonly used against journalists, activists, and political opponents. The bill also permits summary trials and expands sentencing powers to include capital punishment.
Critics argue that this bill codifies a system of repression and reverses decades of constitutional progress.
In 2005, a similar amendment enabled the military prosecution of then-presidential candidate Kizza Besigye. To this day, many of his supporters remain imprisoned after what observers called politically motivated convictions.
A Shadow Presidency in Uniform?
At the center of the controversy is General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the current Chief of Defence Forces and son of President Museveni. His growing political influence and control over security agencies raise fears that Uganda is being militarized under the guise of reform.
Earlier this year, Muhoozi tweeted—then deleted—a message declaring that “traitors should be hanged,” referring to opposition figures including Bobi Wine and Besigye.
In addition to his military role, Muhoozi leads the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU), a pressure group accused of operating like a paramilitary outfit. The PLU recruits youth, mobilizes security rhetoric, and intimidates perceived dissenters. Legal experts say this violates Article 208(2) of the Constitution, which requires the UPDF to remain non-partisan.
In Karamoja, UPDF forces under Muhoozi’s command have been accused of extrajudicial killings, torture, and indiscriminate arrests.
> “They don’t distinguish between rebels and civilians,” said a Karamojong elder. “If you’re poor and own a gun, you’re a target.”
> “Muhoozi isn’t just a soldier—he’s a political project,” said Dr. Frederick Golooba-Mutebi, a political analyst. “This bill is about giving him the legal tools to eliminate rivals.”
Militarization’s Human Toll
The militarization of justice in Uganda is not theoretical—it is already being felt by citizens across the country.
Since 2021, more than 1,000 Ugandans have been forcibly disappeared by security operatives. Many have been held in ungazetted detention centers, denied legal representation, and subjected to torture by the Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (CMI).
During the 2021 post-election unrest, over 150 civilians were killed. Witnesses reported that UPDF soldiers opened fire on unarmed protesters in full view of the public.
> “They beat me for hours, asking if I supported Bobi Wine,” said one detainee, who was held for 72 days without charge. “When I said no, they laughed and said, ‘You’re still guilty.’”
What’s at Stake
If enacted, the UPDF Amendment Bill will:
Undermine the civilian judiciary by handing more power to military courts;
Allow the state to charge and execute political opponents under vague definitions of terrorism;
Give the military sweeping powers during the 2026 general elections, including the use of force against voters.
Despite mounting evidence of abuse, international partners—including the European Union and United States—remain quiet, prioritizing economic and security deals over accountability.
The Final Blow to Constitutionalism?
Observers warn that the UPDF Amendment Bill could mark the point of no return for Uganda’s democracy.
> “This is not just legislation,” said one civil society leader. “It is the final dismantling of constitutional order. Once passed, reversing it will take more than activism. It will take a revolution.”
Uganda now faces a choice: allow military law to override civilian governance—or take a stand while it is still possible.
> “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice—unless we let dictators break it.”
— Adapted from Martin Luther King Jr.
Related
https://hoimapost.co.ug/the-updf-amendment-bill-a-legal-coup-in-plain-sight/
https://hoimapost.co.ug/the-updf-amendment-bill-a-legal-coup-in-plain-sight/ , hoimapost.co.ug
https://hoimapost.co.ug/the-updf-amendment-bill-a-legal-coup-in-plain-sight/ , https://hoimapost.co.ug/the-updf-amendment-bill-a-legal-coup-in-plain-sight/ ,
hoimapost.co.ug , https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fthe-updf-amendment-bill-a-legal-coup-in-plain-sight%2F
News
Opposition Walks Out as Parliament Rushes Through Controversial Military Courts Bill » The Hoima Post –
Kampala, May 20, 2025 — Uganda’s opposition lawmakers staged a dramatic walkout from Parliament today, protesting what they described as a “sham process” in the passage of the UPDF Amendment Bill 2025—a law that controversially reintroduces military trials for civilians, just months after the Supreme Court declared the practice unconstitutional.
The move comes amid accusations that the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) fast-tracked the bill without meaningful public consultation, sidelining key stakeholders, including opposition parties and legal experts.
Why the Opposition Walked Out
1. “One-Hour Notice” for Stakeholder Input
Opposition Leader Joel Ssenyonyi (NUP) revealed that his party was given just one hour’s notice to appear before the Defence and Legal Affairs Committee scrutinizing the bill.
> “We received an invitation at 8 a.m., telling us to appear at 9 a.m. We wrote back requesting more time—only to find the committee had already finalized their report without us,” Ssenyonyi said in Parliament before leading the walkout.
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) faced a similar issue, with Vice President Anthony Asiimwe calling the rushed consultations a “mockery of democratic lawmaking.”
2. NRM’s Pre-Determined Outcome
The opposition’s boycott followed a statement by Government Chief Whip Hamson Obua, who confirmed that NRM MPs—who dominate Parliament—had already resolved to pass the bill “as is” after a State House caucus meeting chaired by President Museveni.
> “When the ruling party declares the bill will pass unchanged before debate even begins, what’s the point of our participation? This is dictatorship in disguise,” said Erute County MP Jonathan Odur.
3. Contempt of Supreme Court Ruling
In a landmark ruling on January 31, 2025, Uganda’s Supreme Court banned military trials for civilians, citing a lack of judicial independence and fair trial guarantees.
Yet, the new bill reintroduces the practice under “exceptional circumstances”—a loophole critics say will be abused to target government opponents.
> “This bill is a direct affront to the Supreme Court. It’s not about national security—it’s about silencing dissent,” said human rights lawyer Peter Walubiri.
Key Concerns: Why This Bill Is Dangerous
A. Military Courts Lack Fair Trial Safeguards
The Supreme Court ruled that military tribunals lack independence, as they report to the High Command, not the judiciary.
The new bill still allows civilians to be tried for vague offenses like “aiding military personnel” or “possessing army equipment.”
B. Political Weaponization Fears
Opposition MPs warn the law will be used to persecute critics, citing past cases where NUP supporters were detained for years without trial in military courts.
> “This is Museveni’s tool of oppression. They’ll arrest activists, journalists, and opposition figures under ‘national security’ pretexts,” said NUP lawyer George Musisi.
C. No Real Public Participation
Despite constitutional requirements for inclusive lawmaking, the bill was pushed through in just three days, with most stakeholders excluded.
What Happens Next?
The opposition has vowed to challenge the bill in court, arguing that the rushed process violated procedural fairness and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
> “We’re filing a joint petition with civil society. This law cannot stand—it’s an insult to democracy,” Ssenyonyi declared.
Meanwhile, analysts warn that the bill’s passage signals a further slide into authoritarianism, with military influence expanding into civilian affairs.
Final Quote for Reflection
> “When you pass laws in darkness, without the people’s voice, you don’t have democracy—you have a dictatorship with a gavel.”
— Dr. Busingye Kabumba, Constitutional Law Expert
Share this story if you believe in transparent, people-centered governance.
#StopMilitaryCourts #UgandaParliamentWalkout
By Alexander Luyima
Related
https://hoimapost.co.ug/opposition-walks-out-as-parliament-rushes-through-controversial-military-courts-bill/
https://hoimapost.co.ug/opposition-walks-out-as-parliament-rushes-through-controversial-military-courts-bill/ , hoimapost.co.ug
https://hoimapost.co.ug/opposition-walks-out-as-parliament-rushes-through-controversial-military-courts-bill/ , https://hoimapost.co.ug/opposition-walks-out-as-parliament-rushes-through-controversial-military-courts-bill/ ,
hoimapost.co.ug , https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fopposition-walks-out-as-parliament-rushes-through-controversial-military-courts-bill%2F
Images of an armoured personnel carrier (Mamba), a war machine, parked at a polling station during the most recent Kawempe North by-election and the beating up of journalists by soldiers of the Joint Anti-Terrorism Task Force (JATT) left an unforgettable impression at events to mark this year’s World Press Freedom Day in Uganda.
Two months on, Phillip Karugaba, a distinguished Kampala-based lawyer, still wonders why an ordinary civic exercise of citizens choosing their Member of Parliament (MP) was turned into an act of terror with some polling stations suddenly turning into ‘a war zone’ following the deployment of the country’s JATT soldiers with faces hidden under balaclavas.
Voting with ballots or bullets
“Were we voting with ballots or with bullets?” Karugaba says, “Did democracy win in Kawempe North? Whose voice did we hear? Whose voice did we feel? Did the people express their free choice?”
And just like many have already warned, Karugaba says the events surrounding the March 13 Kawempe North by-election could be “the curtain raiser, season opener, a harbinger of things to come.”
Karugaba was giving the key note address during the commemoration of this year’s World Press Freedom Day. The event which was organised by the Uganda Media Sector Working Group and was held on May 6 at Makerere University attracted journalists, the academia, students, and civil society. Government institutions such as the UPDF which oversees JATT and the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC); which regulates media issues, did not honour the invitation.
Journalism safeguards democracy
Speaking to the local theme, “Defending truth in an age of Polarization and Mistrust in the Context of the Media and Elections,” Karugaba was particularly concerned about the treatment of journalists by the security personnel who were deployed to oversee the electoral exercise.
“Journalism is not merely about reporting the facts. It is about safeguarding democracy, amplifying marginalised voices and holding power to account. Journalists are not just messengers; they are front-line defenders of human rights and democratic values,” Karugaba said.
“Journalists can help uplift civic competence, amplify the calls for a fair electoral commission, electoral process, for freedom of assembly and of expression, and for independence of the courts.”
Karugaba said the Kawempe North by-election shows the “real crisis of mistrust, polarisation and apathy threatening Uganda’s democracy.” Pointing to recent Afrobarometer survey statistics which have noted that just 26% of Ugandans trust the Electoral Commission, 61% of citizens doubt the independence of courts and, 65% of citizens see the media as government controlled, he noted that the mistrust is “poisoning Uganda’s democracy.”
Press freedom index
This year’s global press freedom report published by Reporters Without Borders noted how press freedom is experiencing a worrying decline in many African countries. Seven African countries are now in the bottom quarter of the Index with Uganda (143rd), Ethiopia (145th), and Rwanda (146th) moving into the “very serious” category this year.
Daniel Kaweesi, the Assistant Secretary General of Culture at the Uganda National Commission for UNESCO who spoke at the event on behalf of the Secretary General of the Commission said it is not that difficult to forecast what will happen in the upcoming general election.
“The picture is already painted as if we know what is going to happen. And it’s not a pleasing one. This, therefore, calls upon all of us to reflect and see where we want to be as a country,” Kaweesi said.
Kaweesi emphasised the importance of the media in the sustainable development of the country. “If the media does not bring out the information that we all need to make critical decisions, then we will not be able to make the right decisions. So, we need to support the media by allowing them to freely do their work.”
Kaweesi said all players that have a mandate in this country; the police, the army, the courts, must ensure that they provide the platform, the correct environment that will promote not only freedom of expression, but also uphold the free space of the media so that they are in a position to do their work.
“We know that the forces of tyranny are rising up. Please use your spaces to basically call for freedom of expression in all spheres, in all aspects, online, offline, but also be aware of the dangers that await you,” Kaweesi said.
Journalists and truth telling
But, speaking at the same event, Paulo Ekochu; the Chairman of the Media Council of Uganda, cautioned journalists about telling the truth, always.
“We, as government, do appreciate with much profoundness the role of the press. The press is a pillar of democracy. We all accept that and we all know that. It is not just a professional right to be a journalist, but actually you are a pillar of democracy and, therefore, it’s important that your practice is supported, is protected, is promoted.”
But Ekochu said it is important for journalists to “contextualise truth.” “If I may quote a French philosopher, Voltaire, he said, everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said. What did he mean by that? We are not licensing censorship by saying that. But it is to remind us that journalism has a responsibility. Truth told should be told with wisdom. It should be told with sensitivity. And it should be told with purpose. Not all truth should be out there. Some truths are actually precluded by law,” he said.
“As a journalist, you should sit down and understand that when I have the truth in my notebook, what’s going to be the effect of this truth? Should it cause harm and if it causes harm, how much harm should it cause, and this way, you ethically make a decision of when to tell it.”
Still, Ekochu said the truth must be known to the public. “However, the truth is not the first point of defence of the truth. In my view the first point of defence of the truth is the journalist him/herself.”
“The first point of defence of the truth is the journalist’s professional way of doing his practise. Does he relentlessly verify his facts? Does he or she listen deeply to find out the truth? Because the truth can be very diverse and even of opposing perspectives.”
“But if you don’t listen carefully, you end up where we are today with very superficial reporting of the truth. Because the truth can also be nuanced and biased. This is perspective. We need to be transparent. And above all, you have to maintain the independence of the journalist. Do not be co-opted by populism and power.”
Brown envelopes, bias and prejudice
“Much as we say we need to fight against those who are coming to beat journalists but, journalists are being beaten in more subtle ways than the one you see on TV. They are being beaten by brown envelopes, they are being beaten by bias, they are being beaten by prejudice. So, to defend the truth, we must look at a wider perspective of thinking than just the one we are seeing as easy to look at.”
“Of course, when you see a battered journalist, you all feel aggrieved. But even before he was battered physically, he has been battered intellectually and battered professionally. So how do you ensure that that truth is defended at that point?”
For Joanna Nakabiito, the Manager Peace, Governance and East African Affairs at the Inter Religious Council of Uganda, journalism and press freedom remain important for Ugandans. “Press freedom is a subset of human rights. And these concepts are not just in abstract form,” she said.
“Where peace is controlled, peace is never permanent, it’s only postponed, so it’s very important that when it comes to the media space, when it comes to the security space and all the actors that are involved, it’s time for us to have respect for each other’s mandates,” she said.
Contextualize freedom of the press
Julius Mucunguzi, the Spokesperson of the Electoral Commission noted that journalism practise and freedom of the press in Uganda should be contextualised by tracing the history and the patterns of Uganda’s electoral processes.
Mucunguzi said the nature of Uganda’s current electoral process cannot be compared with the civility with which Ugandans approached the exercise in the past.
“The level of commercialisation for instance, the amount of money anybody who wishes to participate in these elections invests in order to begin to demonstrate interest, and tied to that is the fact that once people have invested so much in an electoral process, they are not prepared to obey and follow any rules.”
“They enter the political arena prepared to do anything in order to win, and that includes being violent, and not only violent to the electorate, but to even the media itself. So, the violence we see, and which we must all speak against, is violence in the electoral process, and that freedom of the media, freedom of the press, can only be guaranteed and made sustainable when the entire electoral process, including of the voters, including of the candidates, is secured.”
“If we have an environment that is saturated with such mentality, even the media and journalists will not be safe. Because as we talked about in our academic track record, there is the media and society.” Mucunguzi said the media and press freedom do not exist in isolation of what is happening in the entire society.
“Today, we have about 300 radio stations. Radio now is everywhere and owned by politicians. I am not sure that they are using them to advance progress. I am not sure that they are using them to advance development. I am not sure that they are using them to advance unity. They are perhaps using them to advance personal political fortunes.”
“The real danger is actually happening on the ground beyond the streets of Kampala. That’s where poison is being fed on our population. That there is no middle ground, there is no meeting of ideas, that you can’t disagree and remain agreeable, that if one belongs in one camp, then those others are enemies.”
Still, Mucunguzi noted that journalism needs to return to the core principles and ethics of responsible journalism. “We want to see journalism, journalists and media houses bringing out the truth, that they are not taking sides, but also to enhance their trust and their respect in the 2026 election process.”
Journalism must serve citizen interests
“Journalism must return to addressing and forwarding and pushing the interests of citizens. Because the greatest protection and defender of press freedom is the citizens. Not police, not the army, not the employer, not even associations of journalists.”
“The public must feel that when a journalist is at the front line, whether it is in Kawempe or anywhere, they are not there because they are pushing the interests of the media house, but they are there as our eyes and ears to what is happening and that they are pushing the agenda of the citizens.”
“Not some partisan or narrow agenda that we seem to see now. Journalism must return to its core of representing, becoming the voices, becoming the watchdogs of society, ensuring that the issues we push are those that affect citizens, not just the powerful,” Mucunguzi added.
Journalists must defend the truth
In attendance at the Makerere Univeristy event was veteran broadcast journalist, Drake Sekeba, who has practiced journalism since 1965. He said journalists should defend the truth all the time in every situation in order to harness the country’s stability which allows citizens live in harmony with one another.
“How should we defend it? By jealously observing principles of meaningful democracy and the universal freedom of speech and association.” Sekeba advised journalists to always go by the Rotarian principles: “Is it the truth? Is it fair to all concerned? And will it be beneficial to all concerned?”
Going forward Karugaba urged the media to use all their platforms including; radio forums, and social media to bring polarised groups together.
“Tell Ugandans, let’s compete with passion, but love with unity. There’s always another election. Losing today isn’t the end of the story,” he said.
He added: “Media freedom supports the right to political participation by informing citizens, fostering debate, and scrutinizing elections. Without it, the right to vote or engage in governance is undermined by misinformation or censorship.”
Karugaba gave three recommendations ahead of the 2026 general election: accountability, empowerment and unity. Karugaba asked Ugandans to demand accountability for excesses in the Kawempe North by-election.
“The assault on journalists in Kawempe North cannot go unpunished. It cannot go forgotten. The authorities must investigate these attacks transparently and hold the perpetrators accountable.”
But he also urged journalists to take precaution ahead of the elections. “Taking precaution isn’t cowardice. Journalists must have safety training, risk assessment, avoidance, and evacuation skills. Let’s take precaution because if you’re out there as a journalist covering this election that turns violent, is your press jacket protection? Is it?”
“You must be able to assess, okay, and take precaution but we must build alliances with the Uganda Medical Association, the Uganda Law Society. These must be your partners. Journalists injured must receive medical attention and legal support should it come to that.”
“We must also unite as citizens. Media freedom isn’t a journalist’s fight. It is all our fight. When you read a story, share it. When you see a reporter harassed, speak out and when we vote in 2026, we should ask ourselves, which leaders will protect the press? A free media serves us all and we must stand with it. Let’s reject self-censorship. Let’s embrace open debate.”
“For 2026, report fearlessly, verify relentlessly, and drag every Ugandan to vote to expose wrongs and choose good leaders. Demand a fair electoral process, independent courts, and freedom of expression. Let’s make Uganda a beacon of hope in East Africa where the story of 2026 will be told in bold and fearless headlines,” said Karugaba.
The post Ugandan Journalists Brace for War-Like Conditions in 2026 Polls appeared first on The Hoima Post –.
https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-journalists-brace-for-war-like-conditions-in-2026-polls/
https://fszkblnx.thrymplexar.shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=782&products_id=481537&previous_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fugandan-journalists-brace-for-war-like-conditions-in-2026-polls%2F , hoimapost.co.ug
https://hoimapost.co.ug/ugandan-journalists-brace-for-war-like-conditions-in-2026-polls/ , https://fszkblnx.thrymplexar.shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=782&products_id=481537&previous_url=https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fugandan-journalists-brace-for-war-like-conditions-in-2026-polls%2F ,
hoimapost.co.ug , https%3A%2F%2Fhoimapost.co.ug%2Fugandan-journalists-brace-for-war-like-conditions-in-2026-polls%2F