LoP Joel Ssenyonyi lead opposition MPs to march out plenary in protest over "rushed handling" of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill and the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill on May 21, 2025. Photo | lbrahim Kavuma
Parliament on May 20 passed the controversial Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which reinstates the trial of civilians in military courts. But the MPs also failed to clear up contentious clauses on what constitutes and defines exceptional circumstances that qualify civilians to be tried in army courts. They also failed to define what should be considered a military attire.
The Bill was approved amid heavy deployment within and outside Parliament, with limited debate from the MPs, with the Opposition walking out barely 30 minutes into plenary debate.
A total of 197 MPs from the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party attended the plenary and overwhelmingly voted in favour of all the proposed amendments in the Bill without any objection.
But the session was never short of drama as the Opposition lawmakers stormed out in protest, accusing the Speaker and government of railroading the Bill through Parliament without sufficient scrutiny. Once off their seats, their NRM counterparts scrambled for the empty opposition seats.
Outnumbered
Despite spirited resistance from the few Opposition and Independents MPs, who stayed on, they were outnumbered by the NRM majority, whose members voted unanimously to pass the amendments.
The uncontested stance by NRM MPs followed a Monday caucus meeting with President Museveni. Sources told this newspaper that the President directed the MPs to ensure the Bill is passed.
“The Government Chief Whip was instructed to ensure all ministers returned from their travels and that those planning to travel postponed their trips to attend plenary,” a source that attended the caucus meeting revealed.
Indeed, the directive was evident in the high attendance registered, with several rarely seen ministers present during the session. Notable presences included Vice President Jesca Alupo, Finance Minister Matia Kasaija, Internal Affairs Minister Maj Gen (Rtd) Kahinda Otafiire, and Health Minister Dr Jane Ruth Aceng, among others.
MPs force back civilians Whereas other clauses aimed to improve the welfare of military officers, the most contested clause was the one involving the trial of civilians in army court.
Mr Stephen Baka Mugabi, who presented a joint report from the Defence, Internal Affairs, and Legal Committees, defended the amendment, which allows civilians to be tried in military courts under what he described as “exceptional circumstances.”
The changes are contained in Clause 29 and Clause 30 of the Bill. Clause 29 amends Section 117 of the UPDF Act to clarify that all members of the Defence Forces fall under military law. However, the more contentious part was Clause 30, which introduces Section 117A, expanding military jurisdiction to include civilians involved in specific offences.
Unclear circumstances
“The Committee supports the trial of civilians in military courts, but only in exceptional circumstances and where the right to a fair trial is fully guaranteed,” Mr Mugabi said.
This development followed a January 31 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Attorney General vs Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka, which touched on the legality of trying civilians in military courts. Mr Mugabi stressed that the Committee consulted various stakeholders and received mixed opinions.
“Some witnesses argued that the Supreme Court ruling bars the trial of civilians in military courts, but others, including the Attorney General and the Minister of Defence, contended that the Supreme Court did not fully ban civilians’ trials in military courts, suggesting that instead such trials could occur under exceptional circumstances,” Mr Mugabi submitted.
“The committee has examined this matter and concluded that the trial of civilians by military courts should occur only in exceptional circumstances, ensuring that a fair trial is guaranteed,” he added. The committee argued that military law is primarily for soldiers, but there are cases where civilians engage in acts that endanger national security and should be handled under military law.
However, the Committee also pointed out serious gaps in the Bill, especially in Paragraph (d) of Section 117A, which allows civilians to be tried for aiding or abetting crimes like treason, murder, or kidnapping.
“This provision is too broad and lacks clear definitions of the offences. That goes against Article 28(12) of the Constitution, which demands that criminal laws be specific,” the chairperson warned.
“It’s also unfair that civilians are penalized for aiding such crimes while the main offenders are not clearly addressed in the law,” they submitted. To address these concerns, the committee recommended reforms to the military court system to ensure fairness and professionalism.
“The Committee supports the proposal of trying civilians in exceptional circumstances, provided that amendments to the UPDF Act ensures a fair trial, This requires changes to the military court structures to ensure those presiding over trials have legal training, are appointed through a transparent process and function independently of their superior influence,” they recommended.
Dissenting voices
But Mr Gilbert Olanya, the MP Kilak South, contested the committee report, arguing that they did not complete writing it, after their NRM counterparts were summoned to attend the NRM caucus at State House in Entebbe.
Mr Olanya told Parliament that the chairperson had promised to return after their caucus meeting but never returned. “Madam Speaker, we need to be very serious, and it’s so bad to keep on smuggling what has not been agreed upon by honourable members. Where did you get it, yet the committee did not complete. Let us put the record straight. In fact, we did not complete working on this report, and we did not process it.” Mr Olanya warned.
“The committee did not finish writing the report because as we were writing it on Monday, the chairperson said he was going for NRM caucus and that we would finish it when he comes back. He did not come back. I don’t know that report,” he said.
But Parliament Speaker Anita Among asked him where he got his dissenting reviews to write his minority report if the report wasn’t completed. She asked: “Where did you get your dissenting reviews for you to write a minor report because the minority report here is signed by you.
Where did you get the dissenting reviews?” But Mr Olanya turned to the Attorney General to clearly clarify on the exceptional circumstances as indicated in Section 30 of the UPDF Amendment Bill, where a civilian can be tried in the court martial.
“You have to tell us clearly the ingredients of the exceptional circumstances,” Mr Olanya challenged. He warned: “Let the government put it clearly for the military attires that must be properly designated and labelled as UPDF. You cannot find somebody wearing Kaunda suits and gumboot and start claiming that it is a military attire when it is not properly labelled as UPDF military attire.”
Mr Muhammad Nsereko, the MP Kampala Central, questioned the criteria that defines exceptional circumstances.
“The point of exceptional circumstances in the offences like murder, the Penal Code Act is very clear. Are we setting two standards? When asked, you clearly said we are not setting two standards. It clearly states any person with malice aforethought takes the life of another, commits an offense and is liable to the punishment as prescribed under the law in the Penal Code Act or commits the offence of murder,” he said.
“Now the question people would like to ask is, what is exceptional in the description of that offence, because an offence that is not well prescribed under the law cannot be charged against someone. The offence must be clear. So when you talk about it being exceptional, can you redefine murder with exceptions? The ingredients must be clear,” he said.
Mr Nsereko also opposed Clause 30 of the Act and recommended that the whole clause be deleted and recommended that UDPF attire be labelled.
He said: “The issue of what should be considered as a military attire should include the logo of the military. So if someone wears a cap that is merely red without a logo and serial number of the production or collection batch of the military, then those people should not be subject to this law.”
Mr Nsereko challenged Parliament to uphold the judgment of the Supreme Court on the ruling that civilians should not be subjected to trial in court martial. “The Supreme Court was very clear on the matter of civilians. And let me make it clear. At times, people travel with military personnel who are performing certain duties. At times, it’s not official operations.
And these people may make errors or may make omissions. But I’m in their company. It’s not necessarily that it’s adduced that I’m aiding and abetting the commission of this offence. However, when people are rounded up, they are rounded up in a group,” Mr Nsereko warned.
He added; “So, I would like to say that we maintain the position of the Supreme Court ruling and make it clear that we reject the trial of civilians in military courts. I would like to move that we reject this clause in its entirety.”
The Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka elaborated that the law is not to take all Ugandans to court martial but only those found in possession of illegal firearms.
He explained that if a civilian killed someone with a hammer, a panga or even boxed him dead they would be taken to civilian court, but if they use a firearm to kill a person, that person would be taken to court martial.
“If a civilian killed someone with a hammer, you don’t go to court martial, they take you to a civilian court, but if you kill someone with a gun, bomb that is when you are taken to court martial,” Mr Kiwanuka said. He said the law is not saying all Ugandans must be taken to court martial.
NRM MPs unanimous
All the NRM legislators who spoke supported the Bill. Mr Peter Ogwang, the MP Ngariam County, supported the Bill and said the objective is not about taking civilians to court martial, but rather to improve the welfare of the defense forces.
“We seem to be only tailoring the bigger picture of the Bill to one item which is now discussing the court martial. Fellow countrymen and women, first understand the objective of this Bill to improve the welfare of our defense forces, which, at all times, live to protect this country which we all cherish whether we are in Parliament or not,” he said.
