The Supreme Court is set to deliver a highly anticipated ruling today that could finally settle the long-standing debate on whether civilians can be legally tried in military courts.
The seven-member panel of senior jurists, led by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, will determine whether the practice of prosecuting civilians in military courts is unconstitutional or if it aligns with the law.
Other justices on the panel include Catherine Bamugemereire, Night Percy Tuhaise, Mike Chibita, Elizabeth Musoke, and Monica Mugenyi.
Context: The Case of Dr Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale
The ruling comes at a critical time, as prominent opposition figure Dr Kizza Besigye and his aide Obeid Lutale have refused to enter a plea before the General Court Martial in Makindye, Kampala.
The duo, currently on remand, face treachery charges brought against them earlier this month.
Their charges stem from their arrest in Nairobi, Kenya, in November last year and subsequent forceful return to Uganda, where they were placed under military prosecution.
Dr Besigye and Mr Lutale argue that, as civilians, they should not be subjected to trial before a military tribunal, which primarily has jurisdiction over Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) personnel.
Prosecution’s Argument for Military Trials
The prosecution contends that since the Supreme Court had not yet issued a final ruling in the case of Attorney General vs. Michael Kabaziguruka, which challenges the trial of civilians in military courts, they have the right to continue prosecuting civilians under military jurisdiction.
However, several legal precedents have already questioned this practice. The trial of civilians in military courts was deemed unconstitutional in three separate constitutional petitions, including Kabaziguruka vs. Attorney General.
Former Nakawa East MP Michael Kabaziguruka and others had been accused of attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms.
Previous Ruling on Military Court Jurisdiction
In a 2021 ruling on the Kabaziguruka petition, the Constitutional Court, in a 3:2 decision, held that while the Court Martial is legally recognized, its jurisdiction is strictly limited to serving UPDF officers.
Despite this ruling, the Attorney General appealed the decision to the Supreme Court and successfully requested a stay of the implementation of the Constitutional Court’s orders, allowing military trials of civilians to continue pending the Supreme Court’s final verdict.
Delays in Delivering Judgment
The ruling has faced significant delays due to multiple challenges, including the deaths of Justices Stella Arach-Amoko and Ruby Opio Aweri, as well as the retirement of Justice Faith Mwondha in early 2023. These setbacks required the selection of a new panel to hear the appeal.
Additionally, a fire outbreak at the Chief Justice’s Chambers in Kololo further complicated court operations, causing additional delays in delivering the much-anticipated judgment.
Public Outcry and Pressure on the Judiciary
The delay has sparked criticism from human rights activists and legal professionals. Many argue that prolonged uncertainty over the issue violates fundamental human rights and undermines the justice system.
Last week, Uganda Law Society President Isaac Ssemakadde issued a strong statement demanding that the judgment be delivered before Dr Besigye and his co-accused return to military court on February 3.
“We don’t care which way you rule, we just want your judgment like yesterday,” he stated, reflecting growing frustration over the prolonged legal battle.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling will have far-reaching consequences, either affirming or overturning the practice of trying civilians in military courts.
If the court rules against the practice, it will set a legal precedent, potentially leading to the release or retrial of numerous civilians currently facing military prosecution.
On the other hand, if the ruling favors the prosecution, the military court’s authority over civilians will be reinforced, raising concerns among civil rights advocates.
As the nation awaits the judgment, legal experts, politicians, and human rights organizations remain on edge, knowing that the court’s decision could reshape Uganda’s legal landscape for years to come.
