In a significant legal shift, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has signed a new law permitting military trials for civilians, despite previous Supreme Court rulings deeming such practices unconstitutional. This amendment allows civilians to be tried under military jurisdiction if they are found with military equipment, a move critics fear could target government dissenters. While the law introduces guidelines to ensure judicial impartiality, opponents warn it can still be weaponized against political adversaries.
New Law Allows Military Trials for Civilians in Uganda
New Law Allows Military Trials for Civilians in Uganda
President Yoweri Museveni's controversial amendment aims to revive military courts for civilian trials under specific conditions.
Uganda's President Yoweri Museveni has recently endorsed an amendment that reactivates the ability for civilians to be prosecuted in military courts under select circumstances. This comes after the Supreme Court declared similar practices unconstitutional earlier this year. Prior to the ruling, civilians could face military tribunals if apprehended with items such as firearms or military attire, drawing significant criticism from activists who alleged the law was routinely employed to suppress political opposition.
In a recent parliamentary session held under tight security and marked by a boycott from opposition members, the amendment was passed, despite concerns about its alignment with the Supreme Court's previous decision. That verdict had stated that military courts lacked impartiality and were underqualified to carry out judicial functions.
In a bid to alleviate some concerns, the amendment stipulates that judges in military tribunals must possess appropriate legal expertise and maintain independence while executing their duties. Nonetheless, civilians could still be prosecuted for possessing military materials. Supporters of the amendment, including army spokesperson Col Chris Magezi, have argued that the law is essential for combatting armed criminal activities and ensuring national security.
Conversely, opposition leader Bobi Wine has expressed fears that this legislation would facilitate direct attacks on political opponents, asserting that all dissenters may be at risk. Furthermore, the Uganda Law Society has indicated plans to contest the amendment's constitutionality.
For years, human rights advocates have claimed that military courts operate as instruments for quelling dissidence, with allegations of fabricated evidence contributing to unjust rulings. Notably, human rights lawyer Gawaya Tegulle highlighted systemic issues within military courts, including lengthy detentions and harsher penalties compared to civilian judicial proceedings.
A prominent case that accentuates these concerns is that of Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition leader arrested in Kenya and charged in military court with gun possession, a charge he denied. Initially facing military court proceedings, his case was later transitioned to civilian jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's ruling.
Museveni, who has maintained power since 1986, publically dismissed the Supreme Court's ruling, asserting that Uganda is governed by the will of the people rather than judicial decisions. He has defended the necessity of military courts by emphasizing the urgent need to address violent criminal actions swiftly.
In a recent parliamentary session held under tight security and marked by a boycott from opposition members, the amendment was passed, despite concerns about its alignment with the Supreme Court's previous decision. That verdict had stated that military courts lacked impartiality and were underqualified to carry out judicial functions.
In a bid to alleviate some concerns, the amendment stipulates that judges in military tribunals must possess appropriate legal expertise and maintain independence while executing their duties. Nonetheless, civilians could still be prosecuted for possessing military materials. Supporters of the amendment, including army spokesperson Col Chris Magezi, have argued that the law is essential for combatting armed criminal activities and ensuring national security.
Conversely, opposition leader Bobi Wine has expressed fears that this legislation would facilitate direct attacks on political opponents, asserting that all dissenters may be at risk. Furthermore, the Uganda Law Society has indicated plans to contest the amendment's constitutionality.
For years, human rights advocates have claimed that military courts operate as instruments for quelling dissidence, with allegations of fabricated evidence contributing to unjust rulings. Notably, human rights lawyer Gawaya Tegulle highlighted systemic issues within military courts, including lengthy detentions and harsher penalties compared to civilian judicial proceedings.
A prominent case that accentuates these concerns is that of Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition leader arrested in Kenya and charged in military court with gun possession, a charge he denied. Initially facing military court proceedings, his case was later transitioned to civilian jurisdiction following the Supreme Court's ruling.
Museveni, who has maintained power since 1986, publically dismissed the Supreme Court's ruling, asserting that Uganda is governed by the will of the people rather than judicial decisions. He has defended the necessity of military courts by emphasizing the urgent need to address violent criminal actions swiftly.
