In more ways than one, May 20, 2025, will go down as one of the darkest chapters in Uganda’s post-independence legislative history.
With little or no reflection at all, NRM MPs granted military courts the authority to try civilians under vaguely defined “exceptional circumstances.
Did they understand the consequences of this decision, given our divisive politics? Were they aware that they could be victims of the very law they championed?
Speaker Anita Among, presiding over the session, was at pains to defend the rushed consultation process (the committee sat for two days).
Yesterday’s events in Parliament contradicted the Supreme Court ruling, which declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional. The judges emphasized that military courts lacked the independence and procedural safeguards necessary to ensure fair trials for civilians.
Despite this, the NRM-dominated Parliament, leveraging its 337-member majority out of 529 voting MPs, pushed through the amendments.
Clauses 29 and 30 of the bill allow military tribunals to prosecute civilians for offenses such as illegal possession of restricted weapons or collaborating with soldiers in serious crimes like treason or murder.
Many analysts have argued that the vague phrasing of “exceptional circumstances” leaves room for arbitrary interpretation, opening the door to potential abuse of power.
Opposition MPs, led by Leader of the Opposition Joel Ssenyonyi, condemned the bill as a “draconian measure” and staged a walkout during the plenary session, decrying the lack of adequate consultation. Ssenyonyi argued that the rushed process excluded key stakeholders, calling it a “sham” designed to fast-track the bill’s passage.
Other opposition legislators, including Nansana Municipality MP Wakayima Musoke, warned that the bill creates a parallel judicial system, undermining civilian courts and threatening democratic accountability. Their protest was not merely symbolic; it was a desperate attempt to draw attention to a legislative process that appeared to prioritize political expediency over justice.
Historical precedents fuel these fears. Since 2002, over 1,000 civilians have been tried in Uganda’s military courts for offenses ranging from murder to wearing attire deemed similar to military uniforms.
Amnesty International has documented how these trials often violate international standards, with coerced confessions, opaque processes, and unfair trials. The case of Dr. Kizza Besigye, who was detained in a military court on charges of treachery and illegal possession of firearms, exemplifies the state’s use of military justice as a political weapon.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Besigye and others were only transferred to civilian courts after public outcry, highlighting the government’s reluctance to relinquish this tool of repression.
The broader implications of the UPDF Amendment Bill are chilling. By formalizing military jurisdiction over civilians, the NRM risks normalizing the militarization of justice, a trend that harks back to authoritarian regimes like that of Idi Amin, where military tribunals were used to silence dissent.
Legal scholars such as Denis Kusaasira have warned that the lack of appellate recourse to the superior civilian courts will foster a climate of fear among citizens who may face politically motivated prosecutions.
Yet a deeper crisis lies within Parliament. Once envisioned as a bastion of democratic debate, the institution has increasingly become a rubber stamp for President Museveni’s agenda. The NRM’s overwhelming majority, combined with Museveni’s history of consolidating power through legislative and constitutional amendments, has stifled meaningful opposition.
The UPDF Amendment Bill, coupled with the passage of the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill, which restricts public funding to parties aligned with the NRM-dominated National Consultative Forum, signals a broader strategy to suppress dissent.
With the 2026 elections looming, fears are mounting that these laws will be weaponized to intimidate opposition leaders, activists, and journalists, stifling the democratic space.
In passing the UPDF Amendment Bill, Parliament betrayed its role as a guardian of the people’s rights. By prioritizing executive interests over constitutional principles, it ceded its moral authority, leaving a legacy of complicity in the erosion of democracy.
Indeed, May 20, 2025, will go down as the day when Parliament lost its soul.
