Uganda’s Parliament faces growing condemnation from legal experts and opposition lawmakers after passing amendments to the UPDF Act that directly contradict a landmark Supreme Court ruling. The controversial legislation, approved last week, reintroduces provisions allowing military courts to try civilians – the exact practice the country’s highest court had declared unconstitutional just months earlier.

The backlash centers on what critics call a blatant disregard for judicial authority and constitutional protections. Bugiri Municipality MP Asuman Basalirwa, himself a lawyer, minced no words in his assessment. “What Parliament did will go down in history as an open defiance of the Supreme Court,” Basalirwa stated. “The exact provisions that were nullified have been maintained. This undermines constitutionalism and sets a dangerous precedent.” His concerns echo across Uganda’s legal community, where many fear the move signals weakening respect for judicial independence.

The Supreme Court’s January 2025 ruling in Attorney General v. Michael Kabaziguruka had been clear. The court found sections of the UPDF Act permitting military trials for civilians unconstitutional, ordering all such cases transferred to civilian courts. The justices emphasized that military courts lack the independence and impartiality required for trying civilians under Uganda’s constitutional framework.

Yet Parliament’s new amendments effectively reverse this judicial victory. Makindye West MP Allan Ssewanyana voiced alarm about the potential for political abuse. “There’s no longer a moral foundation of law in Uganda,” Ssewanyana lamented. “Justice now depends on who is against you.” His comments reflect widespread concern that the law could weaponize the military justice system against government critics and political opponents.

The legislation’s vague language about “military stores” has drawn particular scrutiny. Basalirwa highlighted how ordinary clothing like Kaunda suits and certain footwear could now be classified as military attire under the law’s broad definitions. “The new law says a Kaunda suit is now military uniform,” he explained. “That means someone like me with several of them must lock them away. Even shoes – ordinary shoes – are now described as military.”

While Kampala Central MP Muhammad Nsereko defended some provisions, arguing that military insignia would be required to establish offenses, critics remain unconvinced. Basalirwa countered that without clear, distinctive military uniforms, enforcement becomes arbitrary. “If UPDF wants to define their uniform, they should create distinct attire with clear logos,” he argued. “Without that, enforcement becomes arbitrary and susceptible to misuse.”

Legal scholars warn that Parliament’s actions threaten Uganda’s constitutional order. By reinstating provisions specifically struck down by the Supreme Court, legislators appear to be testing the boundaries of judicial authority. Some experts suggest this could embolden future efforts to circumvent court rulings through legislative maneuvering.

The original Supreme Court case involved former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, a civilian who successfully challenged his military trial on treason charges. The court’s unanimous decision had been celebrated as a victory for due process and civilian legal protections. Its swift reversal through legislation has left many questioning whether judicial rulings can meaningfully constrain government power.

Civil society organizations have joined the chorus of criticism, with several threatening legal challenges to the new amendments. Human rights advocates note that military courts typically lack many due process safeguards present in civilian systems, including independent judiciary oversight and robust appeal mechanisms.

As the controversy grows, attention now turns to whether President Museveni will assent to the bill. Should he approve it, legal experts predict immediate constitutional challenges that could force the Supreme Court to reassert its authority. The coming weeks may determine whether Uganda’s system of checks and balances can withstand this legislative challenge to judicial supremacy.

For ordinary Ugandans, the implications are deeply personal. As Basalirwa warned, “Everybody’s a potential target, everybody’s a potential victim – and that’s what makes this unfortunate.” The legislation’s passage marks a pivotal moment in Uganda’s legal landscape, one that could reshape the balance of power between branches of government and redefine constitutional protections for years to come.

The growing outcry suggests this debate extends far beyond legal technicalities, touching fundamental questions about the rule of law and democratic governance in Uganda. As Parliament and the judiciary appear headed for a constitutional showdown, the nation watches nervously to see which institution will ultimately prevail.