Judiciary Says Supreme Court Ruling Binding on Civilians
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that soldiers who lose cases in military courts cannot seek redress in civilian courts.
The Judiciary has clarified that the recent Supreme Court ruling, which bars soldiers convicted by military courts from appealing to civilian courts, also temporarily applies to civilians.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled that soldiers who lose cases in military courts cannot seek redress in civilian courts.
Keep Reading
The court emphasized that Uganda’s People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, as the primary legislation governing military affairs, does not grant civilian courts jurisdiction to review military court decisions.
“The UPDF Court Martial Appeal Court Regulations were not designed to confer jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal or any other civilian court without explicit statutory authority. The UPDF Act serves as the ‘mother law’ for the Uganda People’s Defence Forces,” ruled a five-justice panel of the Supreme Court.
Binding on Civilians
Commenting on the ruling, Judiciary spokesperson James Ereemye Mawanda said the decision also temporarily binds civilians.
“For now, all persons tried by the Court Martial can only appeal to the General Court Martial and the Court Martial Appeals Court, not the Court of Appeal,” Ereemye said.
He noted that while the Supreme Court has yet to decide on the broader question of civilians being tried by military courts, the matter is sub judice.
“We shall wait for the Supreme Court’s decision,” he added.
The debate over whether civilians should face trial in military courts has been a contentious issue. In 2021, the Constitutional Court ruled in a 3-2 decision that it was unconstitutional for military courts to try civilians, asserting that such courts are part of the executive, not the judiciary.
Justice Kenneth Kakuru, in the lead ruling, stated, “The General Court Martial is not a competent court within the meaning of Article 28 of the Constitution. Military law under the UPDF Act must be construed to exclude laws that fall under the civil courts of judicature.”
The Attorney General, dissatisfied with the Constitutional Court’s decision, appealed to the Supreme Court.
Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka argued before the Supreme Court that military courts only try civilians who violate military-related laws.
He faulted the Constitutional Court from ruling that the military court is not impartial while handling cases involving civilians.
“It is very easy to avoid being tried by the military court—don’t get a firearm illegally, don’t handle military hardware, and don’t aid or abet service offences,” Kiwanuka said.
He contended that the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over civilians who engage in offences linked to military law and faulted the Constitutional Court for concluding that military courts lack impartiality when handling civilians.
“Tribunals are mandated to act impartially. There is no evidence to show that the military court has tried cases in a partial manner,” Kiwanuka told the court.
Contentious Cases Continue
The debate over military courts has resurfaced with high-profile cases, including the recent arraignment of opposition figure Dr Kizza Besigye and his ally Obeid Lutale.
Both face charges of unlawful possession of ammunition and were apprehended in Kenya before being handed over to Ugandan authorities.
The Supreme Court’s pending decision on whether civilians can be tried in military courts will likely have far-reaching implications, potentially reshaping the legal landscape for cases involving military and civilian defendants.
For now, the ruling underscores the distinct jurisdiction of military courts and their autonomy within Uganda’s legal system, leaving unresolved questions about fairness and constitutional alignment.
