Stalemate as Uganda govt, MPs disagree on civilian trials in army court

KAMPALA - Two joint parliamentary committees scrutinising the UPDF Amendment Bill, 2025, have broken off for a weekend without reaching consensus on the controversial issue of trying civilians in military courts.

The impasse on Friday, May 16, 2025, followed a heated engagement between MPs and Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, alongside Defence ministry officials led by Brig. Gen. Moses Wandera, the Joint Staff of Legal Services.

While most lawmakers agreed on the need for a well-constituted, independent military tribunal to enforce discipline within the armed forces, they sharply disagreed over Clause 117A. A provision that seeks to create a legal window for trying civilians under “exceptional circumstances”.

Stating that many of their supporters are already facing charges for wearing the red beret, which has since been classified as military attire, Makindye East MP Derrick Nyeko and Mukono Municipality’s Betty Nambooze (both NUP) warned that Clause 117A could easily be weaponised to settle political scores.

Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka. (Credit: Miriam Namutebi)

“If Uganda is not a communist state like Cuba, North Korea, why would the executive and President be pushing civilians to be tried in civilian courts?” Nyeko wondered.

Weighing in, Nambooze highlighted the right to bail as one of the legal barriers, opposition members face in military courts. She recounted how NUP MPs once turned up en masse to stand surety for their colleagues, only to be rejected by the court martial. On grounds that they were not substantive sureties.

Such restrictions, Nambooze argued, erode the presumption of innocence, a clear sign that civilians have no real footing in the military justice system.

Although Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka assured the committee that purely civilian crimes were exempt from military prosecution, controversy flared when Bugabula North MP and Deputy Chair of the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee, John Teira (NRM), questioned the classification of red berets.

“Can we now agree in principle, while we discuss, where there is an intersection. Can we find a way of eliminating where, singularly, a civilian has committed an offence, for example, that relates to military stores where there is no soldier involved? We have the Red Berets case, for example, can we say those have not committed a crime alongside a soldier,” Teira raised.

Abdu Katuntu (Bugweri county MP). (Credit: Miriam Namutebi)

In response, Kiryowa warned MPs against sending the wrong signal that it is acceptable for civilians to wear attire resembling military uniforms.

“I strongly advise you against trying to encourage this,” Kiryowa cautioned. He added that, despite some past mistakes, that is not a path worth pursuing.

“If mistakes have been made. It is important for us to soul-search and figure out where we have made mistakes and how we can correct them. But you, Members of Parliament, are in a very privileged position right now. Because you have an opportunity before you to sit down and write a law to point out to us where mistakes have been made and how we can correct them,” Kiryowa acknowledged.

“Remember that all other institutions of Government depend on the AG to come up with regulations. It is one thing to seek to regulate political parties using the UPDF Act and another thing to regulate Political Parties using the Political Parties and Organizations Act. If you want to regulate political parties’ uniforms, use the Political Parties and Organisations Act,” Nambooze fired back.

Mukono Municipality MP Betty Nambooze

Deadlock

The engagement, which involved a clause-by-clause review, was intended to make headway on the contentious provisions of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025. 

Under pressure from stakeholders, Bukooli North MP Steven Baka Mugabi (NRM) announced at the start of the meeting with officials from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) led by John Baptist Asiimwe that Parliament had slammed the brakes on the divisive bill.

His remarks came a day after constitutional lawyer Jude Byamukama warned that rushed public consultations could amount to mere window-dressing, risking public alienation and potential lawsuits.

However, while chairing a joint committee hearing on Friday, Mugabi sought to allay these concerns.

At the moment, he noted, the focus was on resolving four contentious clauses which appear to have generated friction. Out of the Bill’s seventy-six clauses, most of which are largely straightforward matters like the welfare of the armed forces, veterans, and command-and-control structures.

Once these sticking points were addressed, Mugabi said the committee would move to report writing. Paving the way for the draft bill’s second reading, slated for Tuesday next week.

“If we can be able to agree with them today, then we can write a report and have it ready probably by Monday,” he disclosed.

Officials from the defence ministry. (Credit: Miriam Namutebi)

Tall order

Sources within the committee indicate that it is highly unlikely the report will be ready in time for Tuesday’s plenary.

“The Committee Chair adjourned the meeting sine die (indefinitely). I also don’t see the committee meeting on Monday because of the NRM caucus. Also, the committee hasn’t even started on voting on clauses,” an MP confided.