Uganda’s Supreme Court has firmly established in its landmark ruling that only soldiers can be tried in military courts.
This reinforces the distinct judicial framework set up under the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act.
The decision, handed down by a panel of five judges, concluded that military courts are solely equipped to handle discipline within the ranks of the UPDF, with the specific aim of deterring further offenses within the armed forces.
The case at the heart of this ruling involved Lt. Ambrose Ogwang, a UPDF officer sentenced to 29 years in prison for murder, who sought to overturn his conviction in a civilian court.
However, the Supreme Court upheld the military court’s authority, reiterating the legal separation between military and civilian justice systems.
This ruling comes at a time when questions about the constitutionality of trying civilians in military courts remain unresolved, leaving many to wonder how this precedent will affect future legal battles involving both soldiers and civilians.
“In our view, the body of the UPDF Act specifically set out the army courts as a parallel judicial framework distinct and juxtaposed against the courts of judicature,” the judgment reads in part.
According to the ruling, it appears to have been contemplated that the UPDF courts were better placed to address discipline issues within the rank and file of the armed soldiers and better able to handle penal sanctions that, hopefully, deter further offending.
“It is through these structures that UPDF soldiers are made accountable. This can be inferred as the legislative intent,” the ruling stated.
The Supreme Court’s ruling has caught attention after it confirmed that only soldiers can be tried in military courts.
This decision came in the case of Lt. Ambrose Ogwang, a UPDF officer convicted of murder by the Court Martial and sentenced to 29 years in prison.
Ogwang had initially won an appeal to reduce his sentence, but the government challenged this ruling in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal had no authority to review military court decisions.
The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Ogwang, as a soldier, was properly tried by the military court.
The ruling panel, led by Justice Lilian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza, also included judges Mike Chibita, Catherine Bamugemereire, Christopher Izama Madrama, and Stephen Musota.
This decision follows a 2020 case in which the Attorney General appealed a Constitutional Court ruling that it was unconstitutional to try civilians in military courts.
This earlier case, brought by former MP Michael Kabaziguruka, challenged his trial in a military court because he was not a member of the UPDF.
In 2022, the same court ruled that military courts are not part of the formal judicial system and therefore cannot try civilians.
The court ordered that all cases involving civilians in military courts be transferred to civil courts.
The Supreme Court heard an appeal on this matter in May, but has yet to deliver its ruling.
The panel reviewing the case was led by Chief Justice Owinyi-Dollo, with Justices Faith Mwondah, Percy Night Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Monica Mugenyi, Elizabeth Musoke, and Catherine Bamugemereire.
Notably, Mugenyi and Musoke had been part of the earlier constitutional court panel that made a similar ruling.
Recently, there have been growing calls for the Supreme Court to make its judgment, especially as more civilians, including Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obed Kamulegya Lutale, continue to be tried in military courts.
What Supreme Court Decision Mean
According to rights activists, the Supreme Court’s decision to limit military court jurisdiction to soldiers has significant human rights implications.
The ruling reinforces the principle that civilians should not be tried in military tribunals, typically not designed to provide the same legal protections and due process as civilian courts.
This decision upholds civilians’ right to a fair trial, ensuring they are tried in courts that follow established judicial standards.
It also aligns with international human rights norms, which stress that civilians should be protected from arbitrary or unfair trials in military systems.
Ultimately, the ruling strengthens the rule of law and protects individual rights by preventing the erosion of justice through military courts.
END
English 