Citizen asks court to block new UPDF law
Mr Dennis Daniel Ssemugenyi, the petitioner.
What you need to know:
- The petitioner also claims the law contradicts a recent Supreme Court ruling that declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.
A Ugandan citizen has petitioned the Constitutional Court to nullify the recently enacted Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Act, 2025, citing multiple constitutional violations.
Just days after President Museveni signed it into law, Mr Dennis Daniel Ssemugenyi, a public interest litigant, is challenging several provisions in the new law, particularly Sections 117A (Clauses 29 and 30) and Clause 82, that reinstate military trials for civilians and criminalise the wearing of “military-style” attire.
In his petition, Mr Ssemugenyi argues that the Act undermines judicial independence, expands military authority over civilian legal matters, and violates fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, equality before the law, and the right to a lawful trade.
“The clause was enacted through a process marred by deliberate gerrymandering to manufacture a parliamentary supermajority,” the petition states. “It undermines Articles 28, 28A, 126, 128, and violates prosecutorial independence as guaranteed under Articles 119 and 120,” he added.
The petitioner also claims the law contradicts a recent Supreme Court ruling that declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.
The February 2025 judgment, stemming from a 2016 petition by former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, ruled that the General Court Martial could not try civilians, especially in capital offence cases, as it violated Articles 126(1) and 129(1)(d) of the Constitution. Despite the ruling, the new law was passed in March 2025 and assented to by the President on June 16, just 26 days later.
Civil society groups and opposition leaders have criticised the speed of the process, calling it rushed and politically motivated. The UPDF (Amendment) Act introduced 84 clauses, including restructuring military courts and establishing a Military Courts Department to oversee prosecutions.
The CDF is empowered to assign acting ranks to heads of these courts, a move the petitioner says threatens the independence of the judiciary.
Mr Ssemugenyi also challenges Clause 82, which prohibits civilians from wearing any attire resembling a military uniform, including berets, camouflage, khakis, combat boots, and even black shoes, arguing that this infringes on Article 29(1)(a) on freedom of expression and personal appearance. “The clause is vague and overbroad, likely to lead to arbitrary enforcement. It also violates Article 21 on equality before the law and Article 40 on the right to engage in lawful business,” the petition reads.
He further argues that the law was passed through unconstitutional means, including electoral gerrymandering, to ensure a ruling party supermajority in Parliament, thus violating Articles 1, 38, 79, and 92 of the Constitution.
The petitioner also cites the creation of a parallel military prosecution system, outside the authority of the civilian Director of Public Prosecutions.
Section 202B of the Act allows for a Directorate of Military Prosecutions led by a serving UPDF officer qualified to be a High Court judge, which he says compromises prosecutorial neutrality and fair trial rights.
Mr Ssemugenyi invokes Article 287 of the Constitution to argue that the law also violates Uganda’s international human rights obligations under treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), which guarantee the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression.
Critics, including legal scholars and civil society, have warned that the law could be used to suppress dissent and political opposition. .
Status quo
Constitutional lawyer Caleb Alaka noted that while the petition has been filed, the law remains in force unless and until the Constitutional Court rules otherwise.
“Until the court pronounces itself, the law is effective and can be used. A petition does not suspend an Act of Parliament,” Mr Alaka said. However, the petitioner argues, citing the landmark Ssemogerere v. Attorney General case, that presidential assent does not shield unconstitutional laws from judicial review.
Article 2(2) of the Constitution provides that any law inconsistent with the Constitution is null and void.
Mr Ssemugenyi seeks a declaration that the UPDF (Amendment) Act is unconstitutional, an order nullifying it, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and a ruling that the use of gerrymandering to engineer a legislative supermajority undermines democratic representation.
Key provisions of new UPDF Act
Reintroduces the practice of trying civilians in military courts, despite a Supreme Court ruling declaring it unconstitutional in February 2025.
Establishes a Military Courts Department and restructures the court martial hierarchy, with senior appointments influenced by military leadership.
Sets up a Directorate of Military Prosecutions, independent of the civilian Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Bans civilians from wearing clothing that resembles military attire—such as berets, camouflage, khakis, combat boots, Kaunda suits, or even plain black shoes.
Justifies military court jurisdiction over civilians for offenses like possession of military items or presence during military operations.
