A Constitutional and Legal Rebuttal to the President’s Justification of Trying Civilians in Military Courts

The principle of proportionality in legal jurisdiction dictates that a civilian offense should be handled within the civilian judicial system, not under a system designed for military discipline.

Part of the Supreme Court bench that led the landmark judgement to free the civilians from the yoke of military court on January 31, 2025. PHOTO/Courtesy.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision is not an attack on national security or an endorsement of criminality, as the President’s statement suggests. Instead, it is a reaffirmation of constitutionalism, due process, and human rights. Being the highest judicial authority, it has the mandate to interpret the law, and its decisions are final and binding.
  • Uganda is a signatory to several international human rights instruments that prohibit the trial of civilians in military courts.
  • The United Nations Human Rights Committee has consistently advised against trying civilians in military courts, affirming that such trials violate due process rights.

Fellow Ugandans, especially the Bazzukulu,

I take this opportunity to engage in an intellectual discourse on the recent Supreme Court ruling regarding the trial of civilians in military tribunals.

President Museveni’s response, while reflecting the historical perspectives of the liberation struggle, is fundamentally flawed in light of Uganda’s Constitution, international legal standards, and the principles of justice that govern a democratic society.

Let us analyze these issues objectively, basing our argument on sound legal reasoning.

  1. The Constitutional Framework and Separation of Powers

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda is the supreme law of the land, binding on all authorities, including the executive, the judiciary, and the legislature. Article 126(1) states that judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution.

The Supreme Court, as the highest judicial authority, has the mandate to interpret the law, and its decisions are final and binding.

The President’s claim that Uganda is “not governed by judges” but by the people is misleading. The people govern through laws, and judges are entrusted with interpreting those laws to ensure justice prevails. Any disagreement with a court decision should be addressed through legal means, such as appeals or constitutional amendments—not through public rebuke or political influence over the judiciary.

  1. The Unconstitutionality of Trying Civilians in Military Courts

The Supreme Court ruling aligns with Article 28(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees every person a fair, speedy, and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Military tribunals are not independent courts in the sense contemplated by the Constitution. They are specialized forums meant for military personnel and are not suited to try civilians.

Furthermore, Article 210 of the Constitution provides that the military courts are established for the purpose of maintaining discipline within the armed forces. Nowhere does the Constitution extend this jurisdiction to civilians. Trying civilians in military courts violates the principles of natural justice, separation of powers, and the right to a fair trial as enshrined in Article 44(c), which explicitly states that the right to a fair hearing cannot be derogated from under any circumstances.

  1. International Law and Uganda’s Treaty Obligations

Uganda is a signatory to several international human rights instruments that prohibit the trial of civilians in military courts.

Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees every person the right to be tried by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) has repeatedly ruled that military courts should not have jurisdiction over civilians. In the case of Media Rights Agenda v. Nigeria (2000), the ACHPR held that military tribunals lack the necessary independence and impartiality to try civilians.

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also consistently advised against trying civilians in military courts, affirming that such trials violate due process rights.

Uganda, as a member of the international community, is bound by these legal instruments and must uphold its obligations.

  1. The Flawed Argument of ‘Guns and Military Jurisdiction’

The President argues that civilians found in possession of guns should be tried in military courts because guns belong to the armed forces. This argument lacks legal merit.

The Penal Code Act and the Firearms Act already provide adequate legal frameworks for prosecuting crimes involving illegal possession or use of firearms.

Civilian courts are competent to handle such cases without compromising national security.

The principle of proportionality in legal jurisdiction dictates that a civilian offense should be handled within the civilian judicial system, not under a system designed for military discipline.

The argument that military courts “helped to discipline Karamoja” is an admission that these courts were used as tools of repression rather than justice. The rule of law cannot be sacrificed for expediency.

  1. The Danger of Executive Overreach and Judicial Independence

The President’s call for the Attorney General to amend the Constitution and laws to facilitate the trial of civilians in military courts is concerning. The judiciary exists to uphold the rule of law, not to serve political convenience. The doctrine of judicial independence, enshrined in Article 128 of the Constitution, prohibits interference by the executive in judicial matters.

Attempts to alter the Constitution to suit a particular political or security agenda undermine democracy and erode the checks and balances essential for good governance. Uganda has already witnessed constitutional amendments that have removed term limits and age limits—moves that have weakened constitutionalism. This proposal would further erode judicial integrity.

  1. The Flawed Comparison with Western Legal Systems

The President’s attempt to compare Uganda’s legal system with Western countries’ stance on same-sex marriage is misplaced. Legal systems operate based on their constitutions, and fundamental human rights are not subject to arbitrary modifications based on political preferences. The real comparison should be with how mature democracies uphold due process, judicial independence, and civilian oversight over the military.

Upholding Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law

The Supreme Court’s decision is not an attack on national security or an endorsement of criminality, as the President’s statement suggests. Instead, it is a reaffirmation of constitutionalism, due process, and human rights.

Trying civilians in military courts violates:
✅ Article 28 (Right to a Fair Hearing)
✅ Article 44(c) (Non-Derogable Right to a Fair Trial)
✅ Article 126 (Judicial Power to be Exercised Independently)
✅ Article 210 (Military Courts for the Discipline of the Armed Forces Only)

It also contradicts international legal standards that Uganda is bound to respect. The correct legal recourse is to strengthen the civilian judicial system, not to expand military jurisdiction in an unconstitutional manner.

Fellow Ugandans, the foundation of a free and just society is the rule of law, not the rule of power. Our duty is to defend the Constitution, protect judicial independence, and ensure that no citizen—regardless of their crime—is denied their fundamental right to a fair trial in a civilian court.

Uganda must remain a constitutional democracy, not a military state.

RELATED: The Legality of Trying Civilian in Military Courts in Uganda

Dr. Isaac Christopher Lubogo is a renowned scholar, innovator, and legal luminary from Uganda.

Previous articleMourning Prof. Bethuel Allan Ogot, a Great Thinker, Historian and Philosopher
Next articleUse of AI in Research and Postgraduate Supervision: Balancing Efficiency and Academic Integrity
Isaac Christopher Lubogo is a renowned scholar, innovator, and legal luminary from Uganda. As a Doctorate of Law scholar and winner of the 2022 Africa Legal Innovation Tech award, he has distinguished himself as a trailblazer in the legal profession. A prolific author, Dr. Lubogo has penned over 70 groundbreaking books, freely accessible at lubogo.org, and available worldwide. As a lecturer of law, he inspires the next generation of legal minds. Founder of the esteemed Suigeneris Think Tank and creator of the pioneering Suigeneris Law App (available on Play Store), Lubogo has revolutionized legal education, providing a one-stop center for comprehensive law teaching materials available at suigenerislawapp.com A true icon in the legal arena, Dr. Lubogo's work continues to transform the landscape of legal scholarship, innovation, and education.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.