Parliament Reviews Bill Overhauling Military Court System in Uganda

In a significant development for Uganda’s military justice system, a new bill has been tabled that fundamentally restructures the composition and authority of military courts. Human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo shared key highlights of the proposed changes, underscoring both progress and points of concern regarding legal representation and judicial independence.

The bill proposes renaming the existing Unit Disciplinary Committees to Unit Court Martials, signaling a shift toward a more formalized judicial structure. One major change is the requirement that all chairpersons of military courts be advocates of the High Court, bringing a level of legal expertise to the leadership of these courts. However, Opiyo points out that, aside from the General Court Martial (GCM), other court members do not need to be legally qualified, with emphasis still placed on military rank over legal training.

For the General Court Martial, the bill stipulates that the chairperson must be qualified to serve as a High Court Judge and hold a military rank not below Brigadier General. Additionally, four other members must also be High Court advocates, marking a partial shift toward professionalizing the court's composition.

The bill also places the appointment of chairpersons in the hands of the High Command, but in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission. Notably, the chairpersons will serve three-year terms and are to operate independently, not under military command—a provision aimed at enhancing judicial autonomy.

Perhaps the most transformative change is the abolition of the Court Martial Appeal Court, with all appeals from the GCM to be heard by the Court of Appeal, integrating the military justice system more directly into Uganda’s civilian judicial hierarchy.

These reforms could have far-reaching implications for the rule of law within Uganda’s armed forces. However, the limited legal qualification required for most court members has sparked debate over whether the reforms go far enough to ensure fairness and professionalism in military justice.
Previous Post Next Post