On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Uganda made a significant ruling that soldiers convicted in military courts cannot appeal their cases in civilian courts. This decision, which emphasizes the unique jurisdiction of military courts, also temporarily applies to civilians. Here’s what you need to know about the ruling and its implications;
The Supreme Court ruling clarified that soldiers who lose cases in military courts cannot seek redress in civilian courts. The court based its decision on Uganda’s People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, which governs military affairs. According to the ruling, civilian courts do not have the authority to review decisions made by military courts.
A five-judge panel of the Supreme Court emphasized that the UPDF Court Martial Appeal Court Regulations were not designed to give civilian courts jurisdiction over military court decisions. The UPDF Act is the “mother law” for the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, and only the military courts have the power to hear appeals from military trials.
Judiciary spokesperson James Ereemye Mawanda explained that the ruling would temporarily apply to civilians who are tried by military courts. For now, anyone convicted by the Court Martial can only appeal to the General Court Martial or the Court Martial Appeals Court, not the civilian Court of Appeal.
While the Supreme Court has not yet made a final decision on whether civilians can be tried in military courts, the matter remains under consideration. Ereemye noted that the judiciary will wait for the court’s final ruling on this matter.
The Debate over Civilian Trials in Military Courts
The issue of whether civilians should be tried in military courts has been contentious for some time. In 2021, Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for military courts to try civilians. This decision was based on the argument that military courts are part of the executive branch, not the judiciary.
Justice Kenneth Kakuru, who led the ruling, stated that the General Court Martial does not qualify as a “competent court” under the Constitution. He argued that military law under the UPDF Act should not apply to civilians and must be interpreted to exclude matters that fall under civil courts.
Attorney General’s Response
The Attorney General, Kiryowa Kiwanuka, disagreed with the Constitutional Court’s decision and appealed to the Supreme Court. Kiwanuka argued that military courts should have jurisdiction over civilians who violate military-related laws. He suggested that civilians could avoid being tried in military courts by simply not engaging in illegal military activities, such as possessing firearms or aiding in military offenses.
Kiwanuka also defended the impartiality of military courts, saying there was no evidence to suggest that they treat civilians unfairly. He emphasized that military courts are obligated to act impartially in all cases.
The issue of military courts has gained attention recently due to high-profile cases, such as the arraignment of opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his ally Obeid Lutale. Both men face charges of unlawful possession of ammunition after being apprehended in Kenya and handed over to Ugandan authorities. These cases highlight the ongoing debate over whether civilians should be tried by military courts.
What’s Next for Military Courts in Uganda?
The Supreme Court’s ruling solidifies the jurisdiction of military courts within Uganda’s legal system. However, the question of whether civilians can be tried in military courts remains unresolved. The outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on this issue could have significant consequences for both military and civilian defendants in the future.
For now, the ruling affirms that military courts operate independently from civilian courts. However, the question of fairness and constitutional alignment is likely to continue to spark debate as Uganda navigates the complex relationship between its military and legal systems.
