By Emmanuel Mihiingo Kaija
In June 2025, Uganda’s Parliament passed legislation reintroducing military trials for civilians, overturning a Supreme Court ruling from January of the same year that declared such trials unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had determined that military tribunals lacked the impartiality and competence necessary to try civilians and ordered the transfer of all ongoing civilian cases to ordinary courts. Despite this directive, the executive and legislature swiftly acted to expand military jurisdiction under the justification of national security, armed violence, and military collaboration offenses. Since 2002, over 1,000 civilians—including journalists, political activists, and opposition figures—have faced charges in military courts, often under circumstances that denied access to due process, independent counsel, and fair adjudication. High-profile figures such as Dr. Kizza Besigye have historically been subjected to these courts, exemplifying their use as tools to marginalize political challengers. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have documented numerous cases where military tribunals imposed harsh sentences without transparency or the possibility of appeal, underscoring systemic violations of both Uganda’s constitutional guarantees and international human rights obligations. The political timing of the legislation is critical, arriving less than a year before the 2026 general elections, which has intensified fears among civil society, opposition parties, and the international community that the state intends to use military courts as a mechanism to intimidate, silence, and delegitimize dissenting voices. This development reflects a broader erosion of democratic governance, where the executive overrides judicial authority and constrains civic space under the threat of coercion, leading to widespread self-censorship among journalists, activists, and ordinary citizens. Economically, political instability and the specter of arbitrary trials exacerbate risks for domestic and foreign investment; Uganda’s domestic debt rose by approximately 26% in 2024, heightening social grievances and putting further pressure on underfunded public services. Socially, the perception of an eroding legal system has created mistrust between citizens and state institutions, undermining confidence in governance and diminishing prospects for peaceful political participation. Internationally, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, along with multiple United Nations human rights bodies, have expressed concern, emphasizing that military courts should not have jurisdiction over civilians under any circumstances, and warning that such practices threaten the integrity of the rule of law. The reinstatement of military trials for civilians is not merely a legal anomaly; it represents a strategic consolidation of power that jeopardizes democratic norms, human rights, and civil liberties in the lead-up to national elections. The situation illustrates the delicate balance between security and freedom, demonstrating how legal instruments can be manipulated to suppress political pluralism and civic engagement. Uganda now stands at a critical juncture where the choices of the state will determine whether judicial independence, accountability, and democratic principles can withstand increasing executive overreach, or whether fear and coercion will come to dominate the political landscape. The international community, alongside Ugandan citizens, must vigilantly monitor these developments to ensure that legal norms, civil liberties, and human rights are protected and that the country does not drift further into a system where governance is enforced through intimidation rather than consent.
The reintroduction of military trials for civilians in Uganda also has profound implications for the country’s legal profession and judiciary. Lawyers practicing in Uganda face increased threats to their independence; defending clients in military courts carries the risk of harassment, disbarment, or even arrest. Reports from the Uganda Law Society indicate that legal practitioners defending opposition figures or politically sensitive cases are increasingly subjected to surveillance, intimidation, and bureaucratic hurdles. This climate not only undermines access to justice but also chills the broader legal community, dissuading advocacy and diminishing the capacity of the courts to act as a check on executive power. Furthermore, judges who have historically upheld constitutional principles now operate under heightened political pressure, raising concerns about the long-term integrity of judicial decision-making. A judiciary under duress risks becoming a symbolic institution, performing the form of justice while eroding its substance, thereby weakening one of the key pillars of democratic governance.
From a societal perspective, the resurgence of military tribunals exacerbates existing tensions between the state and citizenry. Communities in both urban centers and rural areas report a growing fear of arbitrary detention, as accusations of “collaboration with armed groups” or “threats to national security” are often nebulously defined. Civil society organizations note that ordinary citizens are increasingly hesitant to participate in political discourse, join protests, or engage in civic activism due to fears of reprisal. This climate of intimidation mirrors patterns observed in other states where militarized legal mechanisms are used to entrench power: suppression of dissent is normalized, public debate is stifled, and self-censorship becomes a form of survival. In practical terms, this erodes the social contract between state and society, weakening trust in institutions and creating long-term challenges for governance, social cohesion, and national reconciliation.
Economically, the ramifications of military trials extend beyond investor confidence. Uganda’s reliance on foreign direct investment (FDI), donor funding, and regional trade partnerships depends in part on perceptions of political stability and adherence to rule-of-law principles. Arbitrary trials and the overt targeting of opposition figures signal systemic risks that can deter investment, hinder job creation, and constrain economic growth. The World Bank and IMF have repeatedly emphasized that political uncertainty and weak judicial systems heighten fiscal vulnerabilities, a concern amplified by Uganda’s rising debt-to-GDP ratio and persistent budgetary deficits. Additionally, domestic entrepreneurship suffers as small business owners and informal sector operators fear legal entanglements arising from political accusations or state suspicion, thereby constraining innovation and local economic dynamism.
On the international stage, Uganda’s move raises serious questions regarding its obligations under regional and global human rights frameworks. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and various UN treaties to which Uganda is a party unequivocally protect the right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, and protection from arbitrary detention. Reverting to military jurisdiction for civilians not only contravenes these commitments but risks diplomatic isolation, potential sanctions, and a deterioration of Uganda’s standing within regional blocs such as the East African Community (EAC) and the African Union (AU). Already, several Western governments and human rights bodies have issued statements urging Kampala to respect judicial independence, warning that undermining civilian judicial processes undermines confidence in the rule of law and could exacerbate regional instability.
Politically, this development underscores a troubling trajectory: the increasingly militarized nature of governance in Uganda reflects an executive strategy that prioritizes control over consensus. As the 2026 elections approach, military courts may serve as both a deterrent to political competition and a tool to delegitimize opposition successes. Historically, the use of military trials against political figures such as Dr. Kizza Besigye, along with activists and journalists, has functioned as a method of strategic repression rather than justice. The consequences are multifaceted: opposition mobilization is hampered, media coverage is subdued, and civic engagement diminishes. This represents not just an assault on individual freedoms but a systemic effort to recalibrate the political landscape in favor of executive consolidation.
Uganda now stands at a crossroads. The nation’s democratic future hinges on whether constitutional principles, judicial independence, and civic freedoms can withstand executive encroachment, or whether the state will normalize coercion as a mechanism of governance. Civil society, the media, and international partners must remain vigilant, documenting abuses, advocating for legal reforms, and amplifying citizen voices. The survival of Uganda’s democratic institutions, the protection of human rights, and the preservation of civic space depend on sustained attention, principled resistance, and unwavering adherence to the notion that justice must never be subordinated to power. In essence, Uganda’s experiment with military trials for civilians is not merely a legal controversy—it is a test of the nation’s moral and political compass, with consequences that will reverberate far beyond the courtroom walls, shaping the very character of the state for generations to come.
Comparative experiences across Africa illustrate the dangers inherent in extending military jurisdiction over civilians. In countries such as Zimbabwe, Cameroon, and Egypt, similar legal maneuvers have historically facilitated the suppression of dissent, curtailed political pluralism, and deepened societal divisions. In Zimbabwe, for instance, military courts were used to prosecute opposition activists and journalists under broadly defined national security offenses, a practice that drew widespread condemnation from both domestic and international observers and contributed to cycles of political unrest. Cameroon’s use of military tribunals against civilians in the Anglophone regions, ostensibly to quell separatist movements, has been linked to arbitrary detentions, lack of fair trials, and extrajudicial punishments, aggravating the very conflicts the state sought to contain. These precedents demonstrate a recurring pattern: when executive power leverages military courts against civilians, the intended “security” often produces the opposite—instability, erosion of public trust, and international censure. Uganda, in following this path, risks embedding a cycle of legal and political repression that undermines its own long-term stability and development.
The implications of military trials are not limited to the abstract domains of law and governance; they have tangible effects on human lives. Families of those tried in military courts face economic, psychological, and social hardships. Journalists and activists may endure imprisonment without trial, while communities witness the chilling effect on civic participation and public discourse. Such systemic intimidation undermines not only individual liberties but also the social fabric that sustains democratic participation. Uganda’s youth, a demographic critical to the nation’s future, are particularly affected, as the specter of arbitrary detention discourages political engagement, innovation, and social activism. Over time, the normalization of fear corrodes civic culture, producing a society hesitant to demand accountability, challenge abuses, or participate fully in governance.
Internationally, Uganda’s turn toward military trials invites scrutiny and potential diplomatic consequences. Human rights bodies, including the UN Human Rights Council, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the International Bar Association, have consistently emphasized that civilian trials must remain under independent courts to protect fairness and prevent abuses of power. Countries that flout these standards risk sanctions, diminished foreign aid, and reputational damage, which can exacerbate economic vulnerabilities. Moreover, international investors increasingly weigh governance and rule-of-law indicators when making strategic decisions; Uganda’s current trajectory may therefore diminish investor confidence and slow economic growth, further straining a society already grappling with rising debt, inflation, and inequality.
Ultimately, Uganda’s reinstatement of military trials for civilians represents a crossroads of law, politics, and morality. It is more than a constitutional dispute; it is a test of the resilience of democratic principles, judicial independence, and civic courage. The international community and domestic actors alike must act as vigilant custodians of justice, documenting abuses, advocating for legal reform, and supporting civil society in asserting its rights. The stakes are immense: should the state continue down this path unchecked, Uganda risks institutionalizing fear, undermining its democratic institutions, and eroding the civic liberties that form the foundation of any free society. Conversely, adherence to constitutional norms, judicial independence, and respect for human rights can reaffirm Uganda’s commitment to democratic governance and strengthen the social trust necessary for long-term peace, prosperity, and national cohesion.
In this moment of constitutional tension, Uganda faces a choice that will define its political and moral trajectory for years to come. The challenge is clear: to ensure that the law serves justice rather than power, that courts protect rights rather than silence dissent, and that citizens retain the freedom to participate in shaping their country’s destiny. The road ahead will demand vigilance, courage, and principled engagement from all sectors of society, for the preservation of democratic norms, human dignity, and the rule of law is a collective responsibility that cannot be ceded to fear or expediency. Uganda’s future, like its past, will be judged by how it navigates this critical juncture—whether it upholds the promises of its constitution or succumbs to the allure of authoritarian control.
References
Books and Reports
Amnesty International. (2025). Military courts: The front line of Uganda’s war on dissent. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/military-courts-the-front-line-of-ugandas-war-on-dissent/
Human Rights Watch. (2025). Uganda: Supreme Court bans military trials of civilians. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/01/31/uganda-supreme-court-bans-military-trials-civilians
Human Rights Watch. (2025). Uganda passes bill allowing military trials of civilians. https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/05/22/uganda-passes-bill-allowing-military-trials-civilians
International Commission of Jurists. (2025). Uganda: UN official condemns bill allowing civilians to be tried in military courts. https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/05/un-official-condemns-uganda-bill-allowing-civilians-to-be-tried-in-military-courts/
News Articles
Al Jazeera. (2025, May 20). Uganda confirms military trials for civilians despite Supreme Court ruling.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/20/uganda-confirms-military-trials-for-civilians-despite-supreme-court-ruling
Al Jazeera. (2025, April 18). Military courts: The front line of Uganda’s war on dissent. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2025/4/18/military-courts-the-front-line-of-ugandas-war-on-dissent
Reuters. (2025, June 16). Uganda passes law allowing civilians to be tried in military court. https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/uganda-passes-law-allowing-civilians-to-be-tried-in-military-court-2025-06-16/
Reuters. (2025, May 20). Ugandan lawmakers pass bill to try civilians before military courts, defying concern and criticism.
https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/uganda-passes-law-restore-military-prosecutions-civilians-2025-05-20/
Official Statements
United Nations Office at Geneva. (2025, May 20). Uganda: UN human rights spokesperson urges president to reject bill allowing trials of civilians in military courts.
https://www.unognewsroom.org/story/en/2656/uganda-un-human-rights-spokesperson-ravina-shamdasani-urges-president-to-reject-bill-allowing-trials-of-civilians-in-military-courts
Legal and Academic Sources
International Commission of Jurists. (2025, May 20). Uganda: UN official condemns bill allowing civilians to be tried in military courts. https://www.jurist.org/news/2025/05/un-official-condemns-uganda-bill-allowing-civilians-to-be-tried-in-military-courts/
Additional Resources
The Guardian. (2025, May 1). Ugandan opposition accuses president of using military courts to quash dissent.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/01/uganda-opposition-accuses-president-military-courts-quash-dissent
