A heated political battle is brewing in Uganda as President Yoweri Museveni meets with the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM) parliamentary caucus at State House Entebbe to discuss the controversial UPDF Amendment Bill 2025. The proposed legislation, which has sparked fierce opposition from lawmakers, legal experts, and civil society, could dramatically expand the military’s power over civilians in undefined “national security” cases.

At the same time, opposition parties are holding an emergency meeting to strategize their response, furious over what they call a rushed process designed to avoid proper scrutiny. The bill, which appeared on Parliament’s agenda with little warning, has raised fears that the government is attempting to push through far-reaching changes without meaningful debate.

The most contentious part of the bill would allow the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) to prosecute civilians in military courts under circumstances related to national security. While the exact wording remains unclear, critics argue the language is dangerously broad, leaving room for abuse. Legal experts warn that military courts are meant for disciplining soldiers, not trying civilians, and lack the safeguards of ordinary courts.

Human rights groups say the bill threatens basic freedoms, as military trials often deny defendants the right to a fair hearing, independent judges, and proper appeals. They fear the law could be used to target government critics, journalists, and activists under the vague pretext of “national security.”

Opposition lawmakers say they were blindsided by the bill’s sudden introduction, receiving notice just a day before it was tabled in Parliament. They accuse the NRM of trying to force the legislation through without allowing time for public discussion or expert input.

“This is not democracy,” said one opposition MP who asked not to be named. “They want to make a major change to our legal system without even pretending to consult the people or their representatives.”

The bill is already listed for debate on Tuesday, signaling the government’s determination to move quickly. Opposition leaders suspect this urgency is deliberate—an attempt to avoid the kind of public backlash that has derailed similar measures in the past.

The political climate grew even more tense last week when Parliament imposed strict new security measures, including road closures and mandatory ID checks for lawmakers. Opposition figures see this as an intimidation tactic, meant to discourage dissent as debate over the bill heats up.

Some MPs have reported being followed or questioned by security personnel, deepening concerns that the government is preparing to crack down on anyone who resists the bill.

Many observers see the UPDF bill as part of a larger trend in Uganda, where civil liberties have been gradually shrinking under Museveni’s long rule. Over the past decade, the government has passed restrictive laws on NGOs, media, and protests while increasing surveillance and arrests of critics.

“This is not just about one bill,” said a human rights lawyer familiar with the discussions. “It’s about whether Uganda will remain a country where civilians are protected from arbitrary military power, or whether we are moving toward a permanent security state.”

What Happens Next?

The opposition has vowed to fight the bill, but with the NRM controlling a large majority in Parliament, their options are limited. Some hope to rally public pressure or legal challenges, while others are exploring whether international allies might speak out against the law.

For now, all eyes are on the NRM caucus meeting. Will Museveni and his allies push forward despite the outcry, or will they adjust the bill to address concerns? The coming days could determine whether Uganda takes a major step toward militarizing its justice system—and whether the opposition can mount an effective resistance.

One thing is certain: the battle over this bill is about much more than legal technicalities. It is a struggle over what kind of country Uganda will be—and who gets to decide.