Hello

Your subscription is almost coming to an end. Don’t miss out on the great content on Nation.Africa

Ready to continue your informative journey with us?

Hello

Your premium access has ended, but the best of Nation.Africa is still within reach. Renew now to unlock exclusive stories and in-depth features.

Reclaim your full access. Click below to renew.

Caption for the landscape image:

Inside UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025

Scroll down to read the article

NUP supporters in the dock at the General Court Martial in Makindye, Kampala. PHOTO/ FILE

The UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes that any person found in illegal possession of equipment or ammunition that is a monopoly of the army will be tried in military courts.

The 144-page Bill proposals to be tabled for first reading on the floor of Parliament this afternoon, seeks to legalise the army courts that include the General Court Martial (GCM), the Division Court Martial, and the Court Martial Appeal Court.

The Bill proposes ‘exceptional circumstances' under which civilians may be tried in the court martial. The military courts were annulled by a panel of seven Supreme Court judges in their January 31 landmark ruling. A panel of seven Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo in January unanimously banned the military courts from trying civilians.

The judges asserted that the military courts don’t exhibit “independence and fairness” while dispensing justice since they derive their powers from the High Command, yet the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, demands a fair and impartial trial for every citizen.

“The provisions of the UPDF Act constituting and providing for the trial procedure of the GCM, the Division Court Martial, and the Court Martial Appeal Court, 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 provided for under Arts. 21, 28(1), 44(c), and 128(1) of the Constitution,” Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo ruled.

Window

But the Chief Justice also advised the Executive and Parliament to amend the Constitution and make certain changes if the GCM and other military courts are to try civilians.

These recommendations included establishing superior courts within the military court system under Article 129; and clothing them with the requisite jurisdiction and guarantee of independence and impartiality to try specific military offences of a capital nature and all other capital offences under existing laws, committed by military personnel.

The amendments, Owiny-Dollo said, should also provide in the UPDF Act for the High Court to sit as a Court-Martial with the power to try all criminal capital offences within the High Court jurisdiction, and those unique to the military that attract a maximum of life and death sentences.

“Grant the Chief Justice the powers to assign judges to the military courts. A select number of military personnel can act as assessors. Appeals to the Court Martial Appeal Courts would follow the same format, with the Court of Appeal sitting as such. Magistrate’s Courts would assume the jurisdiction over all other offenses of a subordinate Court,” he added.

Owiny-Dollo further advised the two arms of government to make provision in the UPDF Act for the trial of civilians in military courts to be only under limited circumstances; and only after the State has concretely demonstrated to the court verifiable facts and by objective and serious reasons, the need and justification for recourse to the military court.

This, he said, must only apply where the specific class or category of persons and offences in question, ordinary courts are not in a position to undertake such a trial and make provision in the UPDF Act for appeals from military courts and tribunals, corresponding to appeals in ordinary courts.

What the new Bill says

The proposed Bill signed by Defence and Veteran Affairs minister Jacob Oboth-Oboth overhauls the current UPDF Act, 2005. The Bill seeks to align the Act with the Defence Policy and the UPDF Establishment by aligning the titles of the offices in the Act.

The Bill establishes two additional services of the Special Force Command, and the Reserve Force. The Bill further seeks to establish the Joint Military Command and the Service Command and Staff Committee as administrative structures of the Defence Forces.

The draft Bill provides for disability compensation, provision of healthcare for officers and militants of the Defence Forces, the management of pension, the management of military veterans and the award of service medals. After tabling the Bill for first reading, the minister is expected to justify the proposed amendments before the Speaker forwards it to the Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs for scrutiny.

The committee will present its final report to the Parliament during the second reading of the Bill with specific recommendations. The Committee of the Whole House, however, has the final say on the proposed amendments to the Bill.

The government said in the draft Bill that the intention of the amendment is to ensure that the UPDF Act aligns with policies and the command, control, and other administrative structures of the Defence Forces, which have evolved through the introduction of new Services in the Defence Forces.

The reforms also aimed at improving the welfare of the officers and militants of the Defence Forces to address the glaring gaps in healthcare by providing healthcare for officers and militants, harmonise the management of military veterans, among others. The Bill also seeks to insert a Clause 117A into the UPDF Act, 2005, other persons subject to military law provided they fall in different categories.

Among these is a person found with one of the 38 equipment or 26 ammunition, which is ordinarily the monopoly of the defence forces prescribed in Schedule 7A and 7B of the Act. A person found with this equipment and ammunition outside the country shall also be tried according to the proposals.

Another category to be subjected to this law is a person who will be found in possession of, sells or wears a uniform of the Defence forces without permission.

Any person who will be found aiding or abetting or conspiring with another using the military equipment to commit murder, aggravated robbery, kidnap with intent of murder, treason, misprision of treason, and cattle rustling will be subjected to this trial under the military courts.

The Bill further proposes to try a civilian who commits the offence while accompanying the unit or defence forces during the mission as a military officer who is on the rank of Private. “… unless he or she holds from the commanding officer of the unit or other element of the Defence Forces that he or she so accompanies, or from any other officer prescribed by regulations, a certificate, revocable at the pleasure of the officer who issued it or of any other officer of equal or higher rank, entitling that person to be treated as an officer of a particular rank.” 

“A person who holds a certificate referred to in subsection (2) shall be treated as an officer of that rank in respect of any offence alleged to have been committed by him or her while holding that certificate,” reads part of the Bill.

It adds, “Every person subject to military law by virtue of subsection (1) shall, for the purposes of preparation, practice or execution of any plan, arrangement or manoeuvre for the defence or evacuation of any area in case of an attack, be under the command of the commanding officer of the unit or other element of the Defence Forces which he or she is with.”

The Bill also seeks to eliminate the word military court and substitute it with the Unit Court Martial, Division Court Martial, and General Court Martial.

The chairperson of the Unit Court Martial, according to the Bill, shall hold a Bachelor of laws degree and a postgraduate diploma in legal practice, and he or she will be appointed by the High Command from the list of persons approved by the High Command in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission.

The Bill proposes that decisions made by the Unit Court Martial chairperson shall be appealed in the Division Court Martial and the General Court Martial.

The GCM will be headed by a person qualified to be appointed a judge of the High Court and shall not be below the rank of a Brigadier General.

Two of its members shall be advocates of the High Court and not below the rank of a Colonel. Clause 202C of the proposed Bill indicates that the members of the court martial shall, in the performance of their judicial functions, be independent and impartial.

The Bill further proposes the establishment of the Disciplinary Committee for judicial officers, which shall be constituted by the High Command in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, and its Chairperson shall be a person qualified to be appointed a judge of the High Court. It also proposes other issues like establishment of the Chief of Defence Forces medals, UPDF ceremonial uniforms for different units, among others.

Proposals on jurisdiction and qualifications

Qualifications of the Chairperson Unit Court Martial

•Bachelor’s degree in law and postgraduate diploma in legal practices and

•Not below the rank of Captain and serve for three years.

Division Court Martial Chair

•Advocate of High Court, hold office for three years

•Where the accused has high rank than DCM, case shall be referred to GCM

General Court Martial Chair

•A person qualified to be a judge of the High Court and not below the rank of Brig General.

Jurisdiction

•GCM shall have unlimited jurisdiction.

•GCM shall hear all appeals from DCM and UCM.

•Where the accused has higher rank than GCM, the CDF in consultation with High Command shall assign the Head of GCM with rank equal to the accused.

Other proposals

•Establishment of Military Courts Department

•Chairperson of GCM shall be the Head of Military Court Department

•Establishment of disciplinary committee for Judicial Officers

•Chairperson of the disciplinary committee for Judicial Officers shall be qualified to be a judge of a High Court.

Appeal window

•Persons dissatisfied with court martial ruling shall appeal in appellate court.

•Appellate court may grant bail to applicant in exceptional circumstances.

They say...

Erias Lukwago, Lord Mayor

The reincarnation of the GCM sends signals to us, the political actors, that it is going to be a tough season now as we go into 2026...we have to brace up for hard times because ...they will unleash terror on us.

K. Kiwanuka, Attorney General

If the complainants are members of the legislature, they can raise all these issues in the debate when the Bill is presented. Others have MPs whom they should contact and raise all issues so that the debate is carried out and the decision is made by the people whom the Constitution gave the mandate...

Joel Ssenyonyi, LOP

The return of civilians in court martial shall be used to persecute opposition politicians because Gen Museveni has decided to use it that is why you can be held for over four years when no trial has been kicked off, no evidenced induced and as well denied Bail but civilian courts with all their problems it has always been a different matter.

E. Dombo, NRM spokesperson

The Constitution mandates the MPs to pass laws and the Executive implements them, while the Judiciary checks the implementation in the event where the Executive has excessively over-implemented, the people have a right to run to court.

Jonathan Odur, Erute County MP

The Supreme Court said we have a specialised military disciplinary unit which mandate is limited to disciplining members of UPDF but for any other citizens or residents in Uganda who commit a crime, we have civilian courts to try you.

George Musisi, NUP lawyer

The Amendment is basically for purposes of a political witch-hunt, which they did in 2021, where hundreds of NUP youth were taken to court martials. What they are doing is to politicise the court.

Jimmy Akena, UPC President

It’s not proper, let the civilians be tried in civilian courts, and the nature and scope of the military courts, the Supreme Court was clear, so I don’t support the idea.

Peter Walubiri, Lawyer

If the military courts dispense justice faster, why has it taken ages for NUP supporters who were arrested in 2021 to be tried? The GCM is Mr Museveni’s tool of oppression used to persecute the Opposition.

Hamson Obua, Govt Chief Whip

We are not disagreeing with the court decision, we are not altering the decision or judgment of the court, but we are complying with the court decision. And compliance does not offend Art 92 of Uganda’s Constitution. Parliament is duty-bound to make laws.

Stay updated by following our WhatsApp and Telegram channels;