Opposition slam NRM over court martial trial
LoP Joel Ssenyonyi lead opposition MPs to march out plenary in protest over "rushed handling" of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill and the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill on May 21, 2025. Photo | lbrahim Kavuma
What you need to know:
- The Secretary General of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) party, Mr Harold Kaija, described the passing of the Bill as a burial of Uganda’s democratic ideals, saying it allows the UPDF to act as both law enforcer and judge, which he described as a step toward open dictatorship.
Opposition political parties have criticised the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) party legislators for handing over the power to try civilians back to the army. The Supreme Court on January 31 stripped the court martial of the power to try civilians.
However, the Bill passed on Tuesday amid heated protests from the Opposition, who then walked out of Parliament, allowing army courts to resume trying civilians, sparking outrage from Opposition political parties, which say the law marks a dangerous erosion of democratic safeguards.
Mr Robert Kyagulanyi, the leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP), during a press conference at the party headquarters in Makerere Kavule yesterday, described the amendment as a constitutional landmine designed to entrench military dominance in civic spaces and broader authoritarian strategy to militarise governance and criminalise Opposition under the guise of national security.
“This law is not about discipline or national security—it’s about suppressing political opponents and activists using military courts. All those NRM MPs who passed the UPDF Amendment to try civilians in military courts are enemies of our country and must be seen as such for they are very greedy, selfish, myopic,” he said.
He added: “The UPDF is being empowered to try civilians under vague accusations which is fully eradicating democracy and against the Constitution.” Mr Kyagulanyi said the party is consulting legal experts on the possibility of challenging the Bill in the Constitutional Court. Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) was equally critical of the Bill, which it said undermines the powers of the Judiciary.
Mr Hassan Kaps Fungaroo, the acting FDC president, said allowing military courts to try civilians undermines the independence of the Judiciary and endangers fundamental rights. He pledged to lead legal efforts to challenge the Bill’s validity before the courts.
“First of all, the Constitution doesn’t recognise the military courts. The Bill was unconstitutionally passed and we fully rejected it, given the fact that it was considered without our participation as a party therefore condemning the action of a certain portion of Parliament members, which didn’t need necessary consultations,” he said.
He added: “They needed to define which level this court is because there is no connection between the Court of Appeal and the court martial, hence one who is unsatisfied with the judgment doesn’t have where to go for justice-seeking. The military courts are military disciplinary grounds to those affiliated to the army and it doesn’t qualify to be a court of law.”
Mr Opio Okoler, the Democratic Party (DP) spokesperson, called the process a “democratic sham”.
He likened it to legislative ambush, warning that it undermines constitutionalism and invites instability.
“Regardless of our cooperation agreement with the ruling party, it doesn’t limit us from opposing obviously violent-like proposals. The spirit of consensus and national interest was thrown out the window. The ruling party bulldozed this Bill through Parliament because a letter we received about the meeting stipulated May 13 as the writing date, of which we received in the afternoon of May 14, the lack of wide consultation discredits it fully already,” Mr Okoler said.
“There are already existing laws in the Penal Code that deal with aggravated robbery and everything involving a gun so there is no reason for such an act except there is a target of haunting specific people. The other changes are okay except a part in 7(A) which we think is intended to suppress freedom of speech, especially among the Opposition,” he added.
The Secretary General of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) party, Mr Harold Kaija, described the passing of the Bill as a burial of Uganda’s democratic ideals, saying it allows the UPDF to act as both law enforcer and judge, which he described as a step toward open dictatorship.
“Museveni has clearly decided to conquer the judicial power as we are witnessing the systematic destruction of civilian institutions. It is a deliberate effort to dismantle Uganda’s democratic framework by the ruling regime using the military to silence citizens and criminalise dissent,” he said.
Mr Kaija said the Bill is simply an instrument to legalise the intimidation of Ugandans through military might. “The rule of law and justice has been collapsed for the fact that just military-like attire can be planted in someone’s premises for disputes like land conflicts, elections,” he said.
Mr Kaija warned that if the law is implemented, Uganda risks turning into a full-fledged military state, where this shift blurs constitutional lines, positioning the military not as a protector of peace but as a political tool to enforce regime survival. In a statement released yesterday, the Alliance for National Transformation (ANT) party Secretary General Alice Alaso said: “Parliament deliberately abandoned its own procedural rules to bulldoze a dangerous law that assaults constitutionalism, undermines the rule of law, and violates the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling.”
“This law is not just unconstitutional—it is a green light for the continued kidnapping and torture of civilians by the court martial. It has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with repression,” she added. She also warned MPs who backed the Bill that they too could fall victim to the very law they passed, citing the ironic application of the Public Order Management Act on former high-ranking government officials as precedent.
Meanwhile, Justice Forum (JEEMA) party president Asuman Basalirwa, who is also the Bugiri Municipality Member of Parliament, said: “The Constitution clearly separates military and civilian jurisdictions. The Bill says there are exceptions, but after numerous questioning on which those are, there is zero explanation. Does it mean a soldier who commits rape, he won’t be taken to the court martial but rather a civilian court just because the case doesn’t involve a gun or weapons?”
