Lawyer petitions Supreme Court to block return of civilians to military courts
Chief Justice Alphonse Owiny-Dollo (C) speaks during a Supreme Court session to deliver a landmark ruling on the trial of civilians in military courts in Kampala on January 31, 2025. PHOTO/ABUBAKER LUBOWA
What you need to know:
- The bill is scheduled for tabling in Parliament this week as part of the government’s legislative agenda.
Ugandan lawyer Hassan Male Mabirizi has petitioned the Supreme Court to block Parliament from debating a bill that would restore military court jurisdiction over civilians, arguing that the move defies a recent landmark ruling.
In his petition, Mabirizi says the proposed UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025 violates a January 31 Supreme Court ruling that barred military courts from trying both civilians and members of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) for criminal offences.
“The actions of Cabinet, Parliament, and the UPDF in pursuing the reintroduction of court martials with criminal jurisdiction, whether over civilians or soldiers, amount to contempt of court,” Mabirizi states in his affidavit.
He refers to Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021, in which the Supreme Court ruled that military courts lacked sufficient constitutional guarantees of independence and impartiality.
Despite the court’s ruling, government appears to be pushing ahead with legal changes. The bill was reportedly drafted following two meetings between the ruling NRM party caucus and President Museveni.
According to Prime Minister Robinah Nabbanja, the bill is scheduled for tabling in Parliament between April 15 and 17, as part of the government’s legislative agenda.
Mabirizi notes that government officials, including Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi, openly criticized the court’s decision and vowed to overturn it.
“On April 7, 2025, Baryomunsi informed the public that Cabinet had resolved to reinstate court martial jurisdiction over both military and civilians,” Mabirizi said.
He argues that any such move undermines judicial authority and the Constitution itself.
“The actions and processes of the respondents are in clear violation of the Court’s decision, hence amounting to contempt,” he stated, calling on the Court to intervene “in the interest of protecting the sanctity of the Constitution, fair hearing, and rule of law.”
In their January ruling, a majority of seven Supreme Court justices led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo held that military courts lacked the independence needed for fair trials.
“All charges, ongoing criminal trials, or pending trials before the courts-martial involving civilians must immediately cease and be transferred to ordinary courts of competent jurisdiction,” the court ruled.
The justices also advised the Executive and Legislature that any attempt to empower military courts would require constitutional amendments.
They recommended the creation of superior courts within the military system under Article 129, and reforms that would guarantee judicial independence and fairness.
By Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court had not yet set a hearing date for Mabirizi’s petition.
