Supreme Court's landmark ruling: New dawn for judicial integrity?

What you need to know:
- Justice Elizabeth Musoke stressed that Uganda must align its military judicial system with international human rights standards, ensuring that no civilian is subjected to an unfair trial in a military setting. Justice Tuhaise echoed this view, noting that any court imposing severe penalties must be presided over by qualified judicial officers.
In a monumental decision for Uganda’s legal landscape, the Supreme Court has ruled on Constitutional Appeal No. 02 of 2021, Attorney General vs Hon Michael Kabaziguruka, declaring unconstitutional the trial of civilians in military courts.
The ruling marks a pivotal moment in the struggle for judicial integrity, affirming that military courts, as currently structured, are neither independent nor impartial enough to guarantee fair trials.
While this ruling is a significant victory for justice, it also exposes a deeper problem in Uganda’s legal system: the persistent delays in justice delivery. Article 28(1) of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair and speedy trial, yet Uganda’s judiciary has often been criticised for excessive delays.
This very case is an example—filed in 2016, it took nearly a decade to reach its final determination. The Chief Justice acknowledged the adversities that delayed the ruling, including the destruction of court facilities and the loss of key justices due to retirement and death .
However, such systemic failures should not continue to impede justice. The Judiciary must now take deliberate steps to ensure cases are handled expeditiously.
This ruling also aligns with the broader constitutional crisis of delayed justice, as Uganda’s courts have faced significant backlog issues. This is a direct violation of Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees a speedy trial. The Judiciary must take this ruling as a wake-up call to address inefficiencies that continue to undermine public confidence in the justice system.
The Supreme Court’s ruling places the responsibility squarely on Parliament to amend the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act and ensure that military courts only handle disciplinary offences within the military. Sections 117(1)(g) and 117(1)(h), which granted the General Court Martial sweeping jurisdiction over civilians, have been declared unconstitutional.
Justice Elizabeth Musoke stressed that Uganda must align its military judicial system with international human rights standards, ensuring that no civilian is subjected to an unfair trial in a military setting. Justice Tuhaise echoed this view, noting that any court imposing severe penalties must be presided over by qualified judicial officers.
Justice Monica Mugenyi’s closing remarks reverberate: “The trial of civilians in the Court Martial is still an ongoing debate,” signalling that while progress has been made, the journey towards judicial reform is far from complete.
This ruling is a significant step towards judicial accountability and the protection of human rights in Uganda. However, it also serves as a wake-up call for the Judiciary to address systemic delays and for Parliament to act swiftly in reforming outdated laws.
As Uganda moves forward, it is crucial that judicial independence remains a shield against injustice and a sword against impunity. The Supreme Court has laid the groundwork; it is now up to Parliament, the legal fraternity, and civil society to ensure that justice is truly served for all Ugandans.
Authored by Joel Gadafi, Third-year law student, Islamic University in Uganda