Museveni Betrayed as Owiny-Dollo’s Court Delivers Justice, Blocking Civilians from Being Tried in His Military Tribunals

By AGGREY BULUBA

In a landmark ruling, Uganda’s Supreme Court has decisively overturned the General Court Martial’s (GCM) authority to try civilians, declaring such trials unconstitutional.

The judgment, delivered on January 31, 2023, by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, upholds a 2021 Constitutional Court decision that struck down parts of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, which had allowed for the prosecution of civilians in military courts under specific conditions.

This ruling ends a long legal battle led by human rights defenders and opposition politicians who argued that trying civilians in military courts was both unlawful and unfair.

A pivotal figure in this fight was former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, whose personal case became the catalyst for this historic decision.

The movement to end military trials for civilians gained momentum in 2016, when Kabaziguruka, a vocal opposition figure, was arrested and charged before the General Court Martial. Kabaziguruka faced accusations of attempting to overthrow the government but was tried by a military court despite being a civilian. He challenged the military’s authority over his case, arguing that, as a non-member of the armed forces, he should not be subject to military law.

Kabaziguruka’s petition to the Constitutional Court led to the 2021 ruling that declared military trials for civilians unconstitutional. In response, the government, through Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka, appealed the decision, seeking to preserve military jurisdiction over civilian cases.

Now, the Supreme Court has put the matter to rest, affirming that only civilian courts have the authority to try civilians.

Justice Elizabeth Musoke, who agreed with the ruling, emphasized that military courts are intended solely for the discipline of UPDF personnel and cannot try civilians. “The General Court Martial is not a civilian court, and its jurisdiction does not extend beyond military personnel,” she said.

Justice Percy Night Tuhaise echoed this view, stressing that all criminal cases should fall under the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). “Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done,” she stated, highlighting that military courts cannot provide the independence needed for fair trials.

Justice Catherine Bamugemereire went further, criticizing military courts for their lack of impartiality and independence, and warning that they cannot guarantee fair judicial processes.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that military courts may only try UPDF personnel for disciplinary offenses. Civilian cases must now be referred to the DPP and prosecuted in civilian courts.

In response to critics who had accused the judiciary of delaying politically sensitive cases, Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo pointed out, “If you understand mathematics, you’ll see that this judgment took eight months, not four years.” He called for more constructive criticism of the judiciary rather than personal attacks on judges.

This ruling is a significant victory for human rights advocates who have long condemned the practice of military trials for civilians.

However, the focus now shifts to whether the government and military will comply with the decision.

Several civilians remain imprisoned by the General Court Martial, including opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, his associate Obeid Lutale, and their lawyer Eron Kiiza, who was sentenced to nine months by the military court. With the Supreme Court’s decision now clear, there is growing pressure for their immediate release.

Meanwhile, DPP Frances Abodo recently told Parliament that her office does not have the legal authority to take over cases from the Court Martial. “I can’t institute and I can’t take over cases under the Court Martial. I just want to stay in my lane,” she said, calling for legal reforms to clarify how military court cases should transition to civilian courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is a significant setback for the government’s legal position, setting a new precedent that affirms civilian authority over civilian cases.

While this decision marks an important milestone, its true impact will depend on how effectively it is implemented. The coming days will reveal whether authorities will respect the ruling or attempt to circumvent it through legal challenges.