By Nangayi Guyson
KAMPALA, UGANDA (RTN) - In a landmark decision that has sent ripples through Uganda's legal system and civil society, the Supreme Court has ruled that the General Court Martial (GCM) lacks the jurisdiction to try civilians.
This ruling,
delivered by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, upholds a prior Constitutional
Court decision that deemed military trials for civilians unconstitutional.
The announcement not only challenges the long-standing position of the government regarding military jurisdiction but also raises crucial questions about the integrity of justice in Uganda.
The ruling comes amid growing concerns over the fairness and independence of military courts. It highlights the limitations of the GCM, which, according to Justice Elizabeth Musoke, is a military organ with jurisdiction confined strictly to disciplinary matters.
"The cases that may be tried there are limited to discipline, and the nature of punishment is confined to disciplinary measures," she stated, underscoring the court's inability to function as a general judicial body.
The Supreme Court's decision stems from an appeal by the Attorney General, who sought to overturn the Constitutional Court's 2021 declaration that specific sections of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act were unconstitutional.
These provisions had allowed the military court to prosecute civilians under certain circumstances. However, the justices unanimously concluded that there is no constitutional basis for the military to engage in civilian prosecution, firmly stating that all criminal prosecutions should fall under the purview of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
Justice Percy Night Tuhaise articulated a clear stance on the matter, emphasizing that "justice cannot only be done but must be seen to be done."
Her remarks reflect widespread anxieties surrounding the military court's competence, particularly its members' lack of the necessary legal qualifications to ensure fair trials.
Justice Bamugemereire echoed this sentiment, stating that
the GCM "is not a subordinate court and lacks essential features such as
independence and impartiality."
As the ruling went on to clarify, the GCM's role will now be restricted solely to members of the UPDF, and only for cases involving disciplinary offenses.
In instances where a military court determines that a case requires imprisonment, the file must be forwarded to the DPP for prosecution in a competent civilian court.
This procedural shift marks a significant evolution in Uganda’s justice system and aligns with international human rights standards.
The ruling has prompted a robust reaction from various sectors, particularly from human rights advocates who have long decried the prosecution of civilians in military courts.
They view this decision as a major victory in the ongoing struggle for judicial fairness and accountability.
With the Supreme Court’s ruling now binding, lawyers and activists are urging the government to initiate necessary reforms to ensure that the military justice system complies with constitutional provisions. However, the ruling has not been without controversy.
Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka defended the government's position, arguing that the military court's jurisdiction over civilians was justified on national security grounds.
The justices swiftly dismissed this argument, pointing out that there is no constitutional foundation for such claims.
Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo took a moment to address public criticism aimed at the judiciary, particularly allegations of inefficiency in politically sensitive cases.
In a bid to clarify the timeline of the ruling, he remarked, "If you know arithmetic very well, you will see that these have been eight months, not four years."
His defense of judicial independence emphasized the importance of constructive criticism rather than attacks aimed at undermining trust in the legal system.
As the dust begins to settle on this historic decision, the implications are expected to reverberate throughout Uganda's legal landscape.
Legal experts are already speculating on the potential need for the government to amend existing legislation to realign the military justice framework with constitutional mandates.
The Supreme Court's ruling also included an order for costs to be awarded to the respondents, reinforcing the court's disapproval of the government's previous stance.
In a related development, DPP Frances Abodo recently informed Parliament that her office lacks the authority to take over cases from the Court Martial, emphasizing the constitutional constraints that have hampered her office's jurisdiction.
"I can’t institute and I can’t take over cases under the Court Martial. We have looked at it, and I just want to stay in my lane," she told MPs, further solidifying the concerns raised by the Supreme Court decision.
This ruling comes at a time when public scrutiny of military practices is at an all-time high, especially concerning high-profile cases involving political figures.
Speculation is already brewing about whether the military will comply with the Supreme Court's decision and release individuals like Dr. Kizza Besigye and his associate Obeid Lutale, as well as their lawyer Eron Kiiza, who has been incarcerated under military jurisdiction for nine months.
The Supreme Court's decision has opened a Pandora's box of discussions surrounding the balance of power between military and civilian judicial systems.
No comments:
Post a Comment