Whether or Not to Try Civilians in Military Courts: Uganda’s Case

Whether or Not to Try Civilians in Military Courts: Uganda’s Case

reflecting broader tensions between national security imperatives and the protection of civil liberties. Recent legal developments have brought this debate to the forefront, prompting discussions on constitutionalism, human rights, and the rule of law.

Legal Framework and Supreme Court Ruling

Historically, Uganda’s military courts, established under the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, have held jurisdiction over civilians in certain circumstances. This practice faced legal challenges, culminating in a landmark decision by the Supreme Court on January 31, 2025. The Court declared that military courts lack jurisdiction to try civilians, ordering the cessation of all ongoing military trials involving civilians and transferring such cases to civilian courts.

The Court’s decision was grounded in the principle that military tribunals are not “courts of law” as defined by the Constitution and that trying civilians in such courts violates the right to a fair trial. Human rights organizations and legal experts hailed this ruling as a significant step toward upholding constitutional rights and the rule of law.

Government Response and Legislative Developments

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Ugandan government has expressed opposition to the decision. H.E. President Yoweri Museveni criticized the ruling, asserting that military courts are essential for dealing with armed criminals and maintaining national security. Similarly, the Chief of Defense Forces described the decision as “regrettable” and warned of potential national security implications.

In a move that further complicates the legal landscape, Ugandan lawmakers passed a bill on May 20, 2025, enabling the trial of civilians in military courts under specific conditions. The legislation allows for military trials of civilians associated with military personnel and mandates that presiding officers be legally qualified. Critics argue that this law undermines the Supreme Court’s decision and poses risks to democratic principles, especially ahead of the 2026 general elections.

Arguments For and Against Military Trials for Civilians

Proponents of trying civilians in military courts argue that:

• National Security: Military courts are better equipped to handle cases involving armed crimes and threats to national security.
• Efficiency: Military tribunals can expedite the judicial process in cases where swift justice is deemed necessary.

Opponents contend that:

• Fair Trial Rights: Military courts may lack the independence and impartiality required for fair trials, particularly for civilians.
• Constitutional Concerns: Trying civilians in military courts contravenes constitutional provisions and international human rights standards.
• Political Misuse: There is a risk of military courts being used to suppress political dissent and target opposition figures.

Implications and the Way Forward

The ongoing debate over the trial of civilians in military courts in Uganda underscores the tension between security concerns and the protection of civil liberties. The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a pivotal moment in affirming the rights of civilians and the primacy of constitutional law. However, the government’s legislative response indicates a potential shift towards reasserting military jurisdiction over civilians.

To navigate this complex issue, Uganda faces the challenge of balancing national security with the imperative to uphold the rule of law and human rights. Ensuring that civilians are tried in competent, independent, and impartial courts is essential for maintaining public trust in the justice system and safeguarding democratic governance.