In a historic decision that could reshape Uganda’s military justice system, Justice Catherine Bamugemereire of the Supreme Court has suspended all proceedings in the General Court Martial (GCM) involving civilians, declaring the military tribunal’s jurisdiction over civilians unconstitutional. The ruling, delivered on [insert date], marks a significant step toward safeguarding the constitutional rights of Ugandan citizens and has sparked calls for urgent legal reforms.
Justice Bamugemereire’s judgment found that the GCM lacks the constitutional mandate to try civilians, citing its structure and procedures as incompatible with the principles of fairness and impartiality enshrined in Uganda’s Constitution. “Judicial power, as per the law, is vested in the judiciary, and the General Court Martial is subordinate to the judicial system,” she stated. “It is an overreach to create an offense making civilians liable for crimes under military law.”
The ruling suspends all ongoing civilian trials in the GCM, except for cases involving military personnel. Justice Bamugemereire emphasized that soldiers accused of offenses against civilians should be tried in civilian courts, in line with constitutional provisions. She also directed that all pending civilian cases in the GCM be suspended and subjected to judicial review, with an injunction placed on further proceedings.
This decision follows an earlier judgment by Justice Monica Mugenyi, who, alongside a panel of seven justices, declared section 117(1)(h) of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act unconstitutional. This provision had allowed civilians to be tried in military courts, a practice Justice Mugenyi criticized as inconsistent with the Constitution. “The General Court Martial is not an independent and impartial court and is inconsistent with the Constitution,” she stated, describing the provision as vague and unconstitutional.
Justice Mugenyi’s ruling called for reforms to ensure greater independence in military courts, including the involvement of the Judicial Service Commission in appointing GCM judges to guarantee their legal expertise and impartiality. While her decision left room for amendments to the UPDF Act, it reinforced the need for further debate on the trial of civilians in military courts.
Together, these judgments represent a pivotal moment in Uganda’s legal landscape, addressing long-standing concerns about the fairness and impartiality of military trials for civilians. The rulings come at a critical time, as the GCM has been handling high-profile cases involving political figures, including opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye. The Supreme Court’s decisions underscore the need for reforms to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their status or political affiliations, are guaranteed their constitutional right to a fair trial.
Legal experts and human rights advocates have hailed the rulings as a victory for justice and the rule of law. “This is a landmark decision that reaffirms the supremacy of the Constitution and the judiciary,” said [insert expert name], a prominent human rights lawyer. “It sends a clear message that civilians cannot be subjected to military justice, which lacks the necessary safeguards for a fair trial.”
The rulings also set the stage for broader reforms in Uganda’s military justice system. Justice Bamugemereire and Justice Mugenyi’s calls for greater judicial oversight and independence in military courts could pave the way for legislative changes to align the system with constitutional principles.
As Uganda grapples with the implications of these judgments, the focus now shifts to the government and Parliament to enact the necessary reforms. For now, the Supreme Court’s decisions stand as a powerful reminder of the judiciary’s role in protecting citizens’ rights and upholding the rule of law in a democratic society.
Leave a Reply