UPDF Bill: Opposition plans to seek court intervention

___________________

The Opposition in Parliament, led by the Leader of the Opposition, Joel Ssenyonyi, has announced plans to take legal action against the passing of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill 2025 and the Political Parties and Organisations (Amendment) Bill 2025.

This follows what they describe as a deliberate attempt by the ruling party to shut out dissenting voices and rush the controversial legislation through Parliament without due consultation.

The decision comes after the Opposition’s repeated attempts to engage the Speaker of Parliament, Anita Annet Among, on what they termed as legal irregularities and procedural violations during the processing of the two bills were unsuccessful during the plenary session.

“We have taken the decision to go to court over this matter because we have adequate grounds,” Ssenyonyi said in an address to journalists. “Article 92 of the Constitution is being flouted, and the Supreme Court decision is being disregarded. Most importantly, there was no meaningful consultation.”

The Opposition contends that they were neither granted an opportunity to present their views to the joint committee that reviewed the bills, nor were key stakeholders given adequate time to submit their input. According to Ssenyonyi, this undermined the very spirit of participatory democracy enshrined in the Constitution.

“You can disagree with views, but at the very least, you must listen to them,” Ssenyonyi added. “In the past, we have been part of bills we didn’t agree with, but we stayed through the process, presented minority reports, and allowed the majority to have their way while the minority had their say. This time, even that wasn’t allowed. That’s why we are not going to be part of such a sham process.”

Opposition MPs walked out of plenary.

The UPDF Amendment Bill is especially contentious due to its provisions that potentially allow civilians to be tried in military courts, something the Supreme Court has previously ruled unconstitutional. Ssenyonyi emphasised that the government’s decision to reintroduce this provision directly contravenes that ruling.

“We want the courts to speak again in defence of their own space. The Supreme Court has already pronounced itself on this matter, civilians should not be subjected to military courts,” he said. “Even soldiers were protected by that ruling, with the Court stating that offences under the Penal Code should be tried in civilian courts, while military courts should handle internal disciplinary matters.”

The Opposition also raised concerns over what they termed as the fast-tracked nature of the legislative process.

According to parliamentary procedure, stakeholders are to be consulted within a 45-day window. However, Ssenyonyi alleges that invitations to stakeholders were issued abruptly, in some cases on the same morning the bills were discussed, effectively locking them out.

“The Speaker had promised to allocate time for consultations. But even over the weekend, the joint committee continued processing the bills, meaning stakeholders were not consulted,” he said. “That’s not how laws are made in a democracy. That’s why we’re going to court to challenge the legality of this entire process.”

Despite attending the parliamentary sitting before 10 am as a show of commitment, the Opposition later walked out in protest, reiterating their stand against what they called a predetermined process with no room for dissent.