Uganda passes law allowing civilians to be tried in military court News
Javiramk16, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Uganda passes law allowing civilians to be tried in military court

Uganda President Yoweri Museveni on Monday signed into law a measure that will allow civilians to be tried in military courts. 

The Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF) Amendment Bill 2025 was approved by parliament last month and has now become law following President Yoweri Museveni’s signing. The new law establishes specific situations in which military courts can assert jurisdiction over civilians. The law generally targets civilians who physically accompany military units. However, certain elements of the law may allow for broad application, such as clauses that allow for the prosecution of civilians in possession of firearms or ammunition. 

Monday’s signing follows a tumultuous legal battle. In January, the Supreme Court of Uganda ruled that military courts lacked jurisdiction to try civilians under the country’s constitution. In its decision, the court referenced the “right to a fair hearing” as defined in Section 44(c) of the constitution, and the right to a trial “before an independent and impartial” court as outlined in Section 28(1). President Museveni voiced his displeasure with the court’s ruling, and the UPDF Amendment Bill 2025 was updated to reflect the court’s dissent. New provisions in the bill outlined coordinated efforts between civilian and military courts in an attempt to maintain constitutional compliance. The proposed legislation drew condemnation from UN Officials and human rights groups. 

President Museveni’s signing garnered mixed reactions on Monday. Chief of Staff for the UPDF, Chris Magezi, celebrated the new law in a post on X:

The law will deal decisively with armed violent criminals, deter the formation of militant political groups that seek to subvert democratic processes, and ensure national security is bound on a firm foundational base.

Uganda’s Bar Association, the Uganda Law Society, pledged to challenge the constitutionality of the new law, citing their opposition to policies that undermine the rule of law.