Army defends court martial

Dec 04, 2005

THE UPDF maintains that the jailed Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) leader, Dr. Warren Kizza Besigye, qualifies for trial in the General Court Martial, is presumed innocent till proven guilty and that he is entitled to bail by the military courts. <br>

By Alfred Wasike
THE UPDF maintains that the jailed Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) leader, Dr. Warren Kizza Besigye, qualifies for trial in the General Court Martial, is presumed innocent till proven guilty and that he is entitled to bail by the military courts.
“According to the UPDF Act 7 of 2005, section 119 on the persons subject to military law, he (Besigye) aided and abetted people to commit those crimes for which he must be tried now,” the UPDF’s chief of legal services, Col. Ramadhan Kyamulesire, told journalists at the Uganda Media Centre, Kampala yesterday.
Flanked by the media centre chief, Robert Kabushenga, Kyamulesire said, “The state firmly says there is evidence against him. He procured firearms and conveyed them to other people. These are triable offences for which he must answer.”
On Besigye’s bail, he said, “Look at section 219, a military court may grant bail to a person charged with a service offence on the same considerations that govern the grant of bail in civil courts.”
He said Besigye was not being punished twice by facing trial in the civilian and military courts.
“How can a serious lawyer claim that Besigye is a victim of double jeopardy? Of course, it would be very unconstitutional. In the High Court, it is treason and misprison of treason while in the General Court Martial, the main offence is terrorism, while the alternative offence is illegal possession of firearms,” he said.
Kyamulesire said section 216 enforces the 1995 Constitution. “It says a person, in respect of whom a charge of having committed a service offence has been dismissed, or who has been found guilty or not guilty either by a military court or civil court on a charge of having committed any such offence, shall not be tried again by any court in respect of that offence or any other offence of which he or she might have been found guilty on that charge,” he quoted the army law.
He said they had not received Justice Remmy Kasule’s ruling halting the General Court Martial proceedings against Besigye till its legality is determined.
“Look at section 209 of the UPDF Act. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Act and any regulations made under it, the rules of evidence and procedure to be observed in the proceedings before a Unit Disciplinary Committee or court martial shall, as far as is practicable, be the same as those observed in proceedings before a civil court.”
“In other words, the principles in the civil court are observed. The charges are read out in a language Besigye understands, he has the right to object to the court’s composition including the chairman. He can object to the charge sheet, the prosecution has to prove he is guilty, he can keep quiet, he has a right to call witnesses, he can plead in mitigation in case of conviction...etc,” he said.
On whether the General Court Martial was subordinate to the High Court, he said, “It is very absurd that lawyers can say such a thing. It is vital to examine their original jurisdiction, inherent, appellate powers and their limitations or unlimitations. Note that military courts are special and constitute a parallel system to the civil court system. The powers of the DPP do not extend to the General Court Martial.”
“For instance, there are no provisions for appeals to the High Court from the General Court Martial. If you are dissatisfied with the decisions of the High Court or General Court Martial, you can go to the Court of Appeal and eventually to the Supreme Court. No constitutional petition can be founded on a matter accruing from the General Court Martial, there is no provision in the Constitution that the court martial is a subordinate to the High Court,” Kyamulesire explained.
Ends

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});