The Supreme Court of Uganda has delivered a historic ruling, declaring that the General Court Martial (GCM) lacks jurisdiction to try civilians, reinforcing the supremacy of civilian judicial institutions over military courts.
A Blow to Government
The verdict, delivered by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, upholds a prior Constitutional Court ruling, striking down Sections 2, 119, and 179 of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act as unconstitutional. These provisions previously allowed the military court to prosecute civilians under specific circumstances, a practice now deemed unlawful.
Justice Elizabeth Musoke, concurring with the ruling, underscored that the GCM is a military organ with a limited mandate:
“The cases that may be tried there are limited to discipline, and the nature of punishment is confined to disciplinary measures. It does not have general judicial functions.”
The ruling came in response to an appeal by the Attorney General, who sought to defend the military’s extended jurisdiction over civilians. However, the Supreme Court found no constitutional basis for this argument.
Justice Percy Night Tuhaise emphasized that criminal prosecutions should strictly fall under the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP):
“All prosecution of criminal offenses should be done by the DPP. Justice cannot only be done but must be seen to be done.”
Furthermore, she stressed that the GCM lacks the legal qualifications to guarantee fair trials, reinforcing the need for civilian judicial oversight.
Justice Bamugemereire echoed these concerns, stating:
“The General Court Martial is not a subordinate court and lacks essential features such as independence and impartiality.”
Justice Musoke further elaborated that the military court’s overreach into civilian cases violates fundamental legal principles.
The Supreme Court’s ruling now limits the GCM’s authority strictly to UPDF personnel and only in cases of military discipline. Where a military trial determines that a case warrants imprisonment, the file must be forwarded to the DPP for prosecution in a competent civilian court.
Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka had previously argued that the military’s jurisdiction over civilians was justified on national security grounds. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument, asserting that it violated constitutional protections.
Amid public discourse on judicial delays in politically sensitive cases, Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo took the opportunity to clarify the court’s efficiency:
“If you know arithmetic very well, you will see that these have been eight months, not four years.”
He defended the independence of the judiciary, cautioning against unwarranted attacks on judicial officers:
“Insulting and attacking judicial officers is no way to engage in discourse. Criticism should aim to improve the system, not undermine trust in institutions.”
Legal experts and human rights defenders have hailed the ruling as a significant victory in ensuring fair trials and constitutional adherence. The Supreme Court has also awarded legal costs to the respondents, signaling a strong rebuke of the government’s position.
However, DPP Frances Abodo recently informed Parliament that her office lacks the constitutional mandate to take over military court cases, adding another layer of complexity to the ruling’s implementation.
With deep national relief, the focus now shifts to whether the military will comply with the ruling and release detained civilians, including Dr. Kizza Besigye, Obeid Lutale, and their lawyer Eron Kiiza, who was sentenced by the GCM.
Legal analysts are urging the government to initiate legislative reforms aligning the military justice system with the Supreme Court’s directive. Whether the government will seek legal amendments to reinstate aspects of military court powers remains uncertain.
