UPDF Bill: Law society scoffs at MPs over short notice
This photo taken on October 16, 2020 shows one of the supporters of Bobi Wine reacting as soldiers force him to sit in a truck to Kitalya Prison where he and 40 others were remanded by City Hall Court in Kampala. PHOTO/ ABUBAKER LUBOWA
What you need to know:
- The lawyers further warned Parliament of a breach of the subjudice rule by Parliament should they go ahead with the stakeholder consultations.
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has criticised Parliament for inviting them on short notice to give their views on the Uganda Peoples' Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill.
In a May 14 letter, the vice president of ULS, Mr Anthony Asiimwe, contends that the Clerk to Parliament invited them to interface with the joint Committee on Defence and Internal Affairs and Legal and Parliamentary Affairs just 10 minutes before the start of the said interface.
“The ULS received your invitation letter today at 11 am, scheduling a meeting for noon the same day. With great respect, this time frame is manifestly inadequate for thorough consideration of the 150-page Bill and incompatible with democratic accountability,” read in part the letter by the vice president.
But the lawyers have gone on to warn the House that they should be alive to the fact that there is a pending case before the East African Court of Justice in which ULS sued the Attorney General over the landmark Supreme Court judgment.
The lawyers further warned Parliament of a breach of the subjudice rule by Parliament should they go ahead with the stakeholder consultations.
“Be that as it may, the ULS brings to your attention reference no. 14 of 2025, Uganda Law Society Vs Attorney, pending before the East African Court of Justice. Discussing the Bill’s provisions on military courts would inevitably breach the subjudice rule contrary to Rule 75 of the Rules of Procedure of Parliament,” the lawyers warned.
Lawyers on civilian supremacy
However, a section of lawyers who have so far either appeared before Parliament or aired their legal views on the subject matter, have protested against trying civilians in military courts, arguing that the Bill, by enlarging the military’s scope, chips away the civilian supremacy, a cornerstone of the constitutional democracy, hence eroding the rule of law.
Mr Jude Byamukama, while appearing before Parliament last week, asked legislators scrutinising the UPDF Bill to restructure the clause that proposes the trial of civilians in military courts. He added that the framers of the Bill erred when they enlarged the scope of the category of civilians that can be tried before military courts.
“The jurisdiction of the court martial should be restricted to offences under the UPDF Act, as it should not be set up as a rival court to the civil courts of judicature, which presides over cases under the Penal Code Act. The civil courts are already handling the cases this court is planning to handle,” he said.
He added: “The accused charged in the court martial cannot benefit in the human rights enforcement act and that is a mistake because when the Act was enacted in 2019, it contains that when you try an accused person and they complain on the due process then court require to inquire into that complaint and listen to it.” Likewise, Counsel Wasswa Fahad Gisa of Litmus Advocates said one of the most glaring inaccuracies is the Bill’s attempt to expand the jurisdiction of the courts martial to try civilians under “exceptional circumstances”.
“This is defined ambiguously and potentially opens the door for abuse and undermines the constitutional guarantee of a civilian trial by an independent and impartial court under Article 28 of the Constitution,” counsel Wasswa said at the weekend. He also warned that judicial power in Uganda is to be exercised by courts established under the Constitution and that military courts are administrative bodies and not courts within the Judiciary as defined. “Therefore, any attempt to ascribe judicial functions to the courts martial in a manner akin to civilian courts violates Article 126 (1),” he says.
