Mr George Musisi, one of the lawyers of NUP members (standing) during his submission at the General Court Martial in Makindye, Kampala, on September 27, 2022. PHOTO | ABUBAKER LUBOWA
Lawyers welcomed the Supreme Court ruling halting civilian trials in military courts, citing past intimidation, unfair treatment, and lack of judicial independence in proceedings.
Several lawyers have expressed relief following the Supreme Court landmark judgment last week that stopped the trial of civilians in military court.
Some of the lawyers who defended civilians before the court described their time there as "hell" and are relieved they won’t have to appear before the court again.
Mr Samuel Muyizi, a lawyer, said: “We saw Hon Erias Lukwago being convicted for contempt of the court but as he was being whisked off, his colleague, Caleb Alaka, followed suit. His only crime being an attempt to plead for his colleague.”
“It is a court where if you mention robes; the court would think you are talking about robbery,” Mr Muyizi said while appearing on NTV-Uganda on February 2.
He said the incident happened in 2005 during the trial of Opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye when Mr Lukwago asked the chairperson of the General Court Martial to robe, meaning he should wear his robe.
He said the army court chairperson misunderstood the statement and thought he was being accused of robbery and held Mr Lukwago for contempt of court.
“Our law is very clear, a person is presumed innocent until proven otherwise or until he or she pleads otherwise, but in the army court, one could see an accused person being treated like a person who has to defend themselves, as if they are already guilty,” he said.
Mr George Musisi, another lawyer who has represented several clients before the army court over the years, expressed bitterness with the structure of the docks at th facility, which are enclosed by metallic bars.
“Our docks in the civil courts are different and deliberately set up to ensure the parties are on the same term. But the one in court martial is like a cage where the accused is already caged like a wild animal. This presumes that you are already convicted yet there is a presumption of innocence,” he said.
Both lawyers decried the discrimination by the chairman and his panel as they sometimes don't allow defence lawyers to access the courtroom with phones.
"For lawyers, phones are now like libraries for reference materials, and I'm seated at the Bar with the State, which is prepared with their phones, and for me, I'm incapacitated," Mr Musisi recounts.
Mr Muyizi also remembers cases of intimidation as the court and military of ficers felt they were above the law.
“Their intimidation is about spite. It is about, you know, feeling that they are above the law. That's my experience. It's about them not following civilian authority. Let’s see this time around,” Mr Muyizi said.
Reversing the status quo
The Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, last week declared as unconstitutional the trial of civilians in the military courts. They then ordered that the files of those accused be forwarded to the civilian courts with competent jurisdiction for further management.
“All charges, or ongoing criminal trials, or pending trials, before the courts martial involving civilians must immediately cease and be transferred to the ordinary courts of law with competent jurisdiction,” Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo ruled.
This majority judgment by the judges received a thunderous uproar from the curious opposition politicians and human rights activists present in the court.
“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 Articles 21, 28(1), 44(c), and 128(1) of the Constitution.
