A storm is brewing in Uganda’s legal circles as prominent lawyers raise red flags over the proposed UPDF Amendment Bill, warning that key provisions directly contradict a Supreme Court judgment and threaten to undermine constitutional rights. During tense hearings before Parliament’s joint committee on legal and defence affairs, legal experts delivered a stark message: the current draft risks being struck down by courts for violating fundamental legal principles.

At the heart of the controversy stands Advocate Jude Byamukama, who minced no words in his assessment of the proposed legislation. “This bill in its current form amounts to contempt of the Supreme Court,” he told lawmakers during a critical session. His warning referred specifically to Section 117(A), which he demanded be scrapped entirely for defying established constitutional jurisprudence. The provision’s vague language about military court jurisdiction over civilians particularly alarmed legal observers, as it appears to disregard clear boundaries set by Uganda’s highest court.

The lawyers’ objections center on what they see as dangerous overreach in expanding military court powers. Byamukama highlighted how the bill fails to properly define “exceptional circumstances” under which civilians could face military trials – leaving the door wide open for abuse. This directly conflicts with a 2016 Supreme Court ruling that sought to restrict such military jurisdiction over civilians. “Rather than learning from that judgment, this bill seeks to reverse the gains made in protecting civilian rights,” argued the seasoned lawyer.

The legal team proposed sweeping changes to salvage the legislation. Their recommendations include incorporating the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act into military court procedures and harmonizing the bill with related laws like the Explosives Act and Firearms Act. Without these adjustments, they warned, Uganda risks creating a patchwork of conflicting laws that could paralyze the justice system.

Perhaps the most radical proposal concerns the appointment of military court judges. Currently dominated by military officers, the lawyers want the Judicial Service Commission – the body that oversees civilian judicial appointments – to have real power in selecting military court personnel. “The Commission shouldn’t just advise – it must properly vet candidates,” Byamukama insisted. To further safeguard judicial independence, they proposed single seven-year terms for military court judges, eliminating renewable contracts that could foster political influence.

The legal experts also want to demolish what they see as a unjust hierarchy in appeals. Currently, military court decisions stop at the Court of Appeal. The lawyers demand this be expanded to allow appeals up to the Supreme Court, arguing that no judicial decision – especially those affecting civilians – should be beyond the scrutiny of Uganda’s highest court.

These interventions come at a crucial juncture in Uganda’s ongoing debate about military-civilian relations. The UPDF Amendment Bill was intended to modernize military justice, but critics argue it instead resurrects dangerous precedents. Human rights groups point to Uganda’s troubled history of military courts trying civilians, particularly in politically sensitive cases. The lawyers’ testimony suggests Parliament may be sleepwalking into a constitutional crisis by ignoring past court rulings.

The parliamentary committee now faces difficult choices. They can heed the legal warnings and substantially rewrite the bill, or risk passing legislation that courts may later invalidate. Either path carries political consequences in a country where military-civilian relations remain delicate.

Legal scholars watching the proceedings note the broader implications. “This isn’t just about one bill,” explains constitutional law professor Dr. Sylvia Tamale. “It’s about whether Uganda will respect its own judicial precedents and international human rights obligations. When lawyers warn about contempt of court, Parliament should listen carefully.”

As the debate continues, all eyes turn to how lawmakers will respond. Will they amend the controversial provisions to align with Supreme Court guidance? Or will they test judicial resolve by pushing through changes that directly challenge established rulings? The outcome may set important precedents about parliamentary authority versus judicial review in Uganda’s evolving democracy.

For now, the lawyers’ stark warnings hang over the legislative process like a dark cloud. Their detailed critique has raised the stakes considerably, transforming what might have been routine amendments into a high-profile test of Uganda’s commitment to constitutional governance. As the bill returns to committee for revisions, one thing is clear: how Parliament responds to these legal concerns will reveal much about the balance of power in Uganda’s justice system – and whether military courts will remain an exception or become a parallel system operating beyond full judicial scrutiny.

The coming weeks will prove decisive. Either the bill will be fundamentally reshaped to address the constitutional concerns, or Uganda may face another landmark court battle pitting parliamentary sovereignty against judicial authority. In this high-stakes legal drama, the only certainty is that the lawyers have fired a powerful opening salvo – and Parliament must now carefully consider whether to change course or brace for a constitutional collision.