UPDF Bill is Bulldozed Through Parliament, Army Courts to Try Civilians

Parliament passed the controversial UPDF Amendment Bill (2025) on Tuesday.  The Bill awaits assent by the President to become law.

The House presided over by Speaker of Parliament, Annet Anita Among easily pushed the bill through despite protests from the opposition and some of the member of the Committees that scrutinized it.    

Some MPS complained that they and the members of the public had not been given ample time to deliberate on the Bill. 

Legislator like Erute East MP, Jonathan Odur who presented a minority report about the Bill warned of defects including the violation of the January 31st Supreme Court Ruling, the ruling of the Constitutional Court as well as the provisions of the 1995 Constitution.  

However Odur’s voice together with that of his Kioga East counterpart Moses Okot seem to have fallen on deaf ears because the majority NRM legislature was determined to pass it.   

Odur warned the parliament that it would be violating article 92 of the Constitution if it went ahead to pass the Bill as suggested by the government.

Article 92 of the Uganda Constitution prohibits Parliament from enacting laws that would alter or overturn court decisions. This means Parliament cannot pass laws that directly contradict or overturn specific judgments in individual cases.   

The principle behind this provision is to protect the independence of the judiciary and ensure that legislative actions do not interfere with judicial outcomes.

Like Odur, Kioga East counterpart Moses Okot warned that article 92 provides a restriction on retrospective legislation.

Okot noted that by introducing a section in the law to have civilian tried by the military, the Parliament and the executives was acting in contravention of other articles of the constitution.

“This action amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court which is criminal. A path that must be avoided by a decent parliament” said Okot before he was interjected by the Speaker who seemed uncomfortable with his use of the word “decent parliament”

The passing of the bill comes a day after the NRM parliamentary caucus met in a Entebbe and agreed to have it passed as the current session comes to the end. 

Jonathan Odur went on to say that there is no legal basis to provide for the trial of civilians in the military courts as decided by the constitutional Court and Supreme Court.

Legislators said the passing of the bill in almost the same way as it was presented questions the NRM government’s commitment to constitutionalism and the rule of law. Jonathan Odur told Journalists at parliament that rushing to pass new laws without proper scrutiny would make the Parliament to repeat past mistakes.

The Bill was tabled by the Defence and Veteran Affairs Minister, Jacob Oboth Oboth almost a week ago. It has taken one of the shortest times to be processed at the Committee level as well as the floor of parliament. According to Oboth, the 144-page bill was, in part, influenced by the Supreme Court decision of January 31, 2025, which annulled several sections of the UPDF Act that permitted the prosecution of civilians in military courts.    

Presenting the joint Committee’s report, Nyabushozi MP, Wilson Kajwengye told the Parliament that the reforms suggested by the mover of the bill were designed to ensure that all military personnel receive timely specialized health care.  

“The Joint Committee therefore recommends that establishment and operationalization of a dedicated healthcare services for defence personnel as opposed in the bill be fully supported and adequately resourced” he urged.   He told Parliament that the Bill introduces measures to strengthen monopoly and security classification concerning crucial military assets of the UPDF.

“It specifically outlines which arms and ammunition are solely under the control of Defence Forces. Guaranteeing that these materials remain inaccessible to unauthorized parties” said Kajwengye  

  “However the committee observes that the classification and categorization of materials under the exclusive control of the defence forces particularly military uniforms can have significant implications for civilian wear” he warned. 

“Be that as it may, the Committee asserts that civilians wearing military style attire and berets even without official insignia significantly risk military identity, public trust and operational scrutiny” he added.

Opposition MPs earlier  resolved to take legal action against the government, accusing it of acting in contempt of a Supreme Court directive by pushing through the UPDF Amendment Bill without conducting adequate public consultations. 

Similar sentiments have echoed by civil society actors that were part of the efforts behind the petitions leading rulings against the trials of civilians in military courts.

Responding to the passing of the Bill, lawyer Nicholas Opiyo whom some have been crediting for being objective when analyzing the Bill took to his social media page and asserted that “History will judge the MPs and this parliament for passing a law that has dealt a death knell to political freedom in the country – and stuck out the middle finger to the country’s Supreme Court” he said. 

Opiyo said it is not a coincidence that the UPDF law is fronted alongside a proposal for the amendment of the political partie’s law – seeking to compel parties to get involved in activities on one NGO IPOD, sidestepping the lawful National Consultative Forum.

“The target of both laws is the political opposition, mainly of the red beret lot.  I may be wrong and if I am, please pardon me. The game of prediction, after all, is a brave fool’s errand” said Opiyo. He had initially supported the idea of having a law to streamline the pension of the defence forces, the introduction medical services to the military and some of the clauses in the bill intended to provide a legal backing to military court in trial of serving officers and men in the army courts among others.

“ My predictions – some UPDF Generals (my money is on the Kasese butcher) of the old lot will be arrested and charged as soon as this law is signed into our law book – in a sort of a purge of the old lot and an offering to the angry public to assuage their concerns” he said.