)
)
The Ugandan Government is moving forward with the highly contentious UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which is set to be tabled before Parliament for consideration.
The 143-page bill, set to be tabled by the Minister of Defence and Veteran Affairs, Hon Jacob Oboth Oboth and aims to overhaul the UPDF Act, containing 84 clauses.
Military Courts and Civilian Trials
Exceptional Circumstances One of the most contentious aspects of the amendment relates to the provision allowing military courts to try civilians in "exceptional circumstances."
)
)
)
The amendment was prompted by the landmark Supreme Court ruling that military courts, including the General Court Martial, lack jurisdiction to try civilians.
This ruling, delivered on January 31, 2025, declared the prosecution of civilians in military courts unconstitutional and ordered the immediate transfer of ongoing trials to ordinary courts
However, the bill fails to define what constitutes such circumstances, leaving room for broad interpretation.
The bill specifies that civilians can only be prosecuted in military courts in situations that align with national security, military interests, or the possession of military equipment.
Legal experts, including Counsel Nicholas Opiyo, have questioned whether this provision is a thinly veiled attempt to disregard the Supreme Court ruling.
Opiyo argued that while the bill uses language that aligns with the Court's decision, it does not truly comply with the spirit of the ruling.
He suggested that the bill risks undermining judicial independence by allowing military courts to be used for political purposes.
)
Expansion of Military Law Jurisdiction
The bill also introduces clause 30, which expands the scope of individuals subject to military law.
Section 117A now includes several categories of people, some of which have raised concerns about the potential abuse of power. These new inclusions are:
Family Members and Accompanying Individuals: The bill grants military jurisdiction over people who accompany military units during active service. This includes spouses, children, or any person who resides with or stays in close proximity to military personnel. This is particularly alarming as it extends military law to non-combatants, raising questions about the infringement of personal freedoms.
Persons in Engagement with the Military: The amendment includes anyone who has entered into an unspecified "engagement" with the military. While the definition of engagement is unclear, it opens the door for civilians working with the military in various capacities to fall under military jurisdiction.
Possession of Military Equipment: The bill specifies that anyone found in unlawful possession of military equipment, such as firearms (including licensed firearms like pistols and AK-47s) or other military-grade materials, will be subject to military law. The amendment lists various materials that fall under military jurisdiction, including ammonium nitrate, a substance commonly used in mining, agriculture, and explosives.
Military attire: The list in 7B is far more elaborate and is not solely based on regalia. For instance, Kaunda suits in love green, sky blue, and coffee brown are now a preserve of the armed forces.
Aiding or Abetting Military Offences: Anyone who aids or abets a person subject to military law in committing serious offences, such as murder, treason, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, or cattle rustling, will also be subjected to military law. This provision expands military jurisdiction to include anyone who facilitates crimes, even if they are not directly involved in the criminal activity.
Impersonation of Military Personnel: The bill criminalizes impersonating military personnel, including wearing military uniforms or possessing military equipment without authorisation. This provision is in line with the government’s efforts to prevent impersonation and safeguard military integrity. However, critics argue that the law could be used to target political opponents or individuals who oppose government policies.
Concerns and Legal Ambiguities
Legal experts, including Counsel Nicholas Opiyo, have expressed concerns over the ambiguous language of the bill. Opiyo pointed out that many of the provisions do not align with the idea of “exceptional circumstances” as outlined by the Supreme Court.
For instance, the vague definition of “engagement” and the inclusion of family members under military jurisdiction have raised alarms about potential overreach.
Additionally, the bill’s failure to define what qualifies as an “exceptional circumstance” leaves too much room for arbitrary decision-making.
The inclusion of civilians in military law without clear and justifiable reasons could pave the way for increased militarisation of Uganda’s legal system, leading to political suppression and possible human rights violations.
The amendment, while attempting to address gaps in the military law system, has raised significant concerns about the protection of civil liberties and judicial independence. If the bill is passed in its current form, Uganda’s legal system may face a challenge in balancing national security and individual rights.