KAMPALA, Uganda — Uganda’s legal fraternity has sounded the alarm over the proposed UPDF Amendment Bill, warning that in its current form, the legislation directly violates a standing Supreme Court ruling and threatens constitutional safeguards.
During a high-stakes session with Parliament’s joint committee on legal and defence affairs, seasoned advocate Jude Byamukama delivered a sharp critique, stating that the bill shows open contempt for judicial authority and international legal norms.
“The bill in offing is in contempt of the Supreme Court ruling and disregards international standards,” Byamukama told lawmakers, urging a comprehensive redraft.
At the core of the legal community’s concerns is Section 117(A) — a clause that seeks to expand military court jurisdiction over civilians.
According to Byamukama, this section stands in direct opposition to past Supreme Court efforts to limit such powers.
He argued the language used is dangerously vague, allowing the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) to potentially try civilians under unclear and unchecked circumstances.
“This opens a door for abuse and undermines civilian legal protections,” he warned.
Legal experts are calling for the section’s deletion and for the bill to clearly articulate when, if ever, military courts can assume civilian jurisdiction.
Byamukama further criticised the bill for failing to integrate key legislation such as the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, which is critical to ensuring fairness in all criminal proceedings — including those before military tribunals.
He also highlighted glaring omissions in the bill’s alignment with existing laws like the Explosives Act, Firearms Act, and the Toxic Chemicals Prohibition Act, noting that without harmonisation, the amendments could lead to legal confusion and contradictory enforcement.
To boost transparency and reduce political interference in military justice, Byamukama proposed a stronger role for the Judicial Service Commission. He argued that the commission should not merely advise on appointments to military courts but should have the power to vet and approve candidates.
He also suggested that members of military courts be limited to a single, non-renewable seven-year term, a move he said would enhance judicial independence and reduce the risk of external influence.
Perhaps most notably, Byamukama called for verdicts from military courts to be appealable to the Supreme Court, a change that could bring Uganda’s military justice system in line with democratic norms and deepen public trust in its rulings.
The lawyers’ submission is a turning point in the legislative process. Their critiques have added urgency to public debate, spotlighting major constitutional and human rights concerns that could derail the bill if unaddressed.
As Parliament weighs the future of the UPDF Amendment Bill, it now faces mounting pressure to revise the draft in ways that uphold Uganda’s Constitution, protect civilian rights, and respect judicial authority.
