Members of Parliament attend plenary on May 15, 2025. PHOTO/IBRAHIM KAVUMA
Ruling NRM party and the Opposition on May 19 rallied their members ahead of two key votes on the UPDF, and Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bills, 2025. Several ruling party MPs, led by the Government Chief Whip, Mr Denis Hamson Obua, were seen rushing to State House Entebbe for the party’s parliamentary caucus meeting called by President Museveni, the party chairman.
Sources revealed that all the NRM legislators, including those upcountry, were directed to attend the meeting without fail or face unspecified consequences. Not to be outdone, the Opposition caucus also held its own meeting and reversed an earlier decision to boycott today’s plenary session.
The change of heart came with a resolution to mount a spirited fight against the Bills during the parliamentary debate. Meanwhile, teams of legislators were busy putting together the majority and minority committee reports in one of the city hotels. The reports are expected to be tabled before the House today for scrutiny and approval.
There have been robust criticisms from Opposition leaders, rights activists, and legal experts that the processing of the two Bills have been rushed and debated within only three days. But Mr Obua maintained that Parliament was within its constitutional mandate to pass the two pieces of legislation.
Mr Joel Ssenyonyi, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament (LoP), yesterday told journalists in Kampala after the three-hour closed-door meeting that the Opposition caucus had resolved to attend the sitting and stage a spirited resistance against the Bill. Should the proposed law be passed and get the president’s assent, it would reintroduce the trial of civilians in military courts.
“There have been calls from different sections of the public the Opposition should stay away from the sitting to consider these problematic Bills, on grounds that if we attend, we shall legitimize the process and some said if we do not attend, the bills will not be tabled, which is not true,” Mr SSenyonyi said.
“If we do not sit, the House will sit and pass them without us. In our meeting this morning, we agreed that while we are here, it is important that we use the legally provided platform we have to push back. Is it going to be easy? Certainly not. But it is the platform that we have, so that we are on record. It is important. It does not necessarily mean that we could win. Still, it is important that we have our say on record,” he added.
Mr SSenyonyi said their participation in today’s session could form the basis of any future court challenge to the Bills.
Government Chief Whip Dennis Hamson Obua addresses the media in Parliament on May 19, 2025. PHOTO/IBRAHIM KAVUMA
Bills processed in three days
Last week, Defence minister Jacob Oboth Oboth tabled the UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, seeking to force back civilians to be tried in military courts.
The Bill also addressed veteran affairs, establishing two additional services of the Special Forces Command, and the Reserve Force. The Bill also proposes to formalise new administrative structures that would include the Joint Military Command and the Service Command, and Staff Committee.
The Bill was referred to a joint committee of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee and that of Defence and Internal Affairs. The joint committee met several officials and concluded their report on Friday. On the same day, the House granted Napak District Woman MP Faith Loru Nakut, to prepare and introduce the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, 2005.
The Bill that is also before Parliament, if amended and signed into law by the President, will cut off funding to political parties like the National Unity Platform (NUP), which is neither a member of NCF nor IPOD.
On Wednesday, the Bill was tabled for first reading and sent to the Legal and Presidential Committee for scrutiny. Usuk County MP Bosco Okiror, one of the movers of the Bill, wants the Parliament to amend Section 14 of the Act, which mandates the government to provide funding and other resources to political parties and political organisations represented in Parliament, to ensure all political parties subscribe to the NCF, which was formed by the Act.
Mr Okiror maintains that the proposed amendments are aimed at putting an end to the practice by some political parties who refuse or fail to commit to the principles of tolerance, dialogue and co-existence between and among different political parties and Organisations and their members by not participating actively in activities of the NCF or being members to the IPOD.
The D-day
The respective committees are expected to present their findings during the Bill’s second reading today. Thereafter, Parliament will reconvene as the Committee of the Whole House to scrutinize the Bills clause by clause and vote on their final passage.
Parliament has 557 MPs, including 529 who have voting rights, and 27 who are ex-officio. Of the 529, NRM has 337 members followed by Independents 87, the National Unity Platform (NUP) 57, and Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party 31, Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) 11, the Democratic Party (DP) 9, while the People’s Progressive Party (PPP), and Justice Forum (Jeema) have one MP each. For any Bill to pass requires two-thirds of the members to vote for it.
Opposition caucus led by the Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Mr Joel Ssenyonyi (far centre), during a meeting at Parliament yon May 19, 2025. PHOTO/IBRAHIM KAVUMA
Opposition leaders speak out
The Opposition parties are also contesting the limited time allocated for public scrutiny and the few stakeholders who were able to present views on both bills.
Mr Ssenyonyi says some stakeholders received their invitations only an hour before they were expected to appear before the relevant parliamentary committees. This, he said, made it impossible for them to prepare adequately. “As NUP, we received the invitation to present our views at 9am and we were required to appear before the committee at 9am.
Uganda Law Society received their invitation at 9am and were expected to appear at 10am. We couldn’t turn up for the meeting because the time we were given was limited. We asked that we show up on Monday, but we did not get any response. We heard the committee sat on Saturday and started writing their reports,” Mr Ssenyonyi added.
Other Political players also voiced strong objections to the Bill, which they say targets civilians and contradicts the past Supreme Court rulings.
Mr Jimmy Akena, the Uganda Peoples Congress (UPC) party president, said the government’s move was misguided and confirmed that all UPC MPs would vote against the provisions seeking to subject civilians to military trial.
“We [are] against the sections which are designed to subject civilians to a military system which go against the principles of what the Supreme Court put forward. Anything done against that is done in bad faith and it is wrong,” Mr Akena warned.
Mr Kaps Fungaroo, the acting president of the Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) [party, echoed the sentiments, rejecting the entire Bill and warned Parliament not to go against court rulings.
“We consider the UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, as unconstitutional, and we reject that Bill in its totality. We call on our colleagues, and other opposition political parties, to support our position on this matter that this whole bill should be thrown out. And if it’s passed that way without our participation, we will go to court and challenge it,” he said.
“A good legislative process has principles. One of the cardinal principles is public participation in the legislative process. We see the UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, falling short of that cardinal principle,” he added.
Mr Opio Okoler, the Democratic Party (DP) spokesperson, argued that the military courts should be strictly for disciplining errant soldiers, and not civilians. “We believe that court-martials should only be safe for disciplining errant officers.
The law should be clear that when an army officer retires from the military and then engages in acts illegal in nature involving ammunition that is a preserve of the army they should be taken to the court martial. For those ones, even though retired, carry a particular training that can only be dealt with by the military,” he said.
Meanwhile, Mr Onesmus Muwanga, a human rights activist, yesterday delivered a petition to the Office of the Speaker of Parliament asking her to halt debate on the Bill and cause a referendum to be held on the matter.
“It is truly unfair to leave the matter of such a weight to be decided upon by only MPs. The fact that civilians are not engaged in such a contentious matter would gravely affect their freedoms in future, so it would be best to leave them to decide for themselves.,”
Government responds
But Mr Obua dismissed claims that the public was denied adequate time to engage with the Bill. Mr Obua, who addressed the media before leading a group of MPs to State House Entebbe for the NRM caucus meeting, said all stakeholders were given a chance to participate.
“If they did not show up, Parliament and its committees should not be blamed,” he said.
“When we have any subject matter in Parliament or Cabinet, we also caucus under the principle of building consensus. We have met not once, not twice... As such, the NRM has never been scared. This country remembers that it is the NRM that brought about stability, and nothing scares it,” Mr Obua added.
Similarly, officials from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions supported the Bill, saying civilians can be tried in military courts under certain conditions. Deputy DPP John Baptist Asiimwe told the joint parliamentary committees on Friday that civilians may face military trials if the state presents sufficient evidence to justify the need.
Proposals in the Bill
The Bill proposes to try a civilian who commits an offence while accompanying the unit or defence forces during the mission as a military officer who is on the rank of Private.
To ease this trial, the Bill seeks to eliminate the word military court and substitute it with the Unit Court Martial (UCM), Division Court Martial (DCM), and the GCM) It is these three courts that will be trying all people and whoever is not convinced with the judgement of UCM and DCM can appeal to the GCM, and in circumstances where the convicted is not satisfied with these rulings can lodge an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
Supreme Court ruling
On January 31, in a landmark ruling in the Michael Kabaziguruka Vs Attorney General case, a panel of seven Supreme Court judges led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo 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.
The 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.
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.
Compiled by Damali Mukhaye, Busein Samilu & Sylivia Katushabe
