Supreme court didn't ban civilian trials in military court — AG

KAMPALA - Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka has dismissed claims that the Supreme Court judgment delivered early this year completely barred the trial of civilians in the General Court Martial, saying the ruling has been widely misunderstood. 

He made the statement on Wednesday, May 14, 2025, while meeting two parliamentary committees over the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill 2025. 

“I can state without any fear or contradiction that the Supreme Court did not at any one point say civilians cannot be tried in the General Court Martial. 

“What I understood this to mean is that civilians can be tried in the General Court Martial in exceptional circumstances. The question for this committee and Parliament is, what are those exceptional circumstances?” Kiryowa stated. 

Present was defence minister Jacob Oboth Oboth and his junior in charge of veteran affairs Huda Oleru Abason, plus Edith Butuuro, the undersecretary. 

Kiryowa implored lawmakers to read the judgment carefully to avoid misinterpreting it. 
His comments came at the end of a heated three-hour debate, during which he clashed with legislators such as Erute South MP Jonathan Odur (Uganda People’s Congress). 

Odur had accused the Government of straying from the core of the Supreme Court judgment in the Attorney General versus Kabaziguruka (Constitutional Appeal 2 of 2021) case. 

“The question was; is it lawful, legal, constitutional to try a civilian in the military justice system or military court? That was the only question that went to the Supreme Court, and the answer was that it was unconstitutional and illegal. 

“The mover seems to have gone and created his own judgment, decision, orders, and then they are being used here,” Odur said. 

The Erute South MP’s remarks irked Kiryowa, who challenged him to cite the specific part of the judgment banning civilians’ trial in the General Court Martial. 

Odur, however, dismissed the suggestion, insisting he had read and understood the judgement. 

“There is no single paragraph of the decision that you have referred to... I will not do for your job,” Odur stated.

Former Leader of Opposition Mathias Mpuuga said he had struggled to reconcile the Bill with Article 129 and 44(c) of the Constitution. 

“I will give you an example. When the International Criminal Division of the High Court was being formed, the parameters that formed it were clearly under Article 129 and was deemed the High Court. The amendment, provided by the learned Attorney General and the minister, for me still contradicts what the Supreme Court guided about. 

“At no one time did I envisage the ruling as advising the military or the minister to go and try to be creative and even try to strip civilians of their status and bring them in under the ambit of the military to sort that ruling,” Mpuuga pointed out. 

He said the Supreme Court judgment was intended to reinforce Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing, rather than merely addressing human resource concerns like the Bill is doing.

NRM MPs support Bill   

Some MPs, including Labwor County MP Jim Bricky Norman Ochero (National Resistance Movement), supported the Bill, arguing that in the absence of stringent gun and military related laws, the country is headed for disaster. 

“In my constituency, in the last six years, 3,985 people have been killed by people with guns who are not soldiers. What the Police is able to do is a post-mortem examination report,” Ochero cited. 

He explained that the proposed law would deal with hard-core criminals, adding that the old law, which was disbanded by the Supreme Court had helped restore calm to Karamoja, which is flooded by illicit guns and cattle rustling. 

He was joined by Soi County MP Fadhil Chemaswet (NRM), who noted that his constituency had for long suffered at the hands of gun-wielding individuals from Karamoja.

Service offences 

The Bill proposes to insert Section 117A, outlining exceptional circumstances under which civilians may be subjected to military law and tried in military courts. 

These include voluntarily accompanying defence forces on active service; serving under a contract that subjects them to military law; unlawful possession of arms, ammunition, or classified equipment, aiding or conspiring with persons subject to military law in serious offences such as murder, aggravated robbery, kidnap with intent to murder, treason, misprision of treason, and cattle rustling. 

The offences can also connote unauthorised use of military identity. Brig. Gen. Richard Tukachungurwa, who was the judge advocate of the disbanded court martial, told MPs that the revised Bill also seeks to redesign ‘service offences’.