Civilians are once again set to face trial before military courts after President Museveni appointed a new 10-member panel to reconstitute the General Court Martial (GCM).
This comes months after the Supreme Court froze its operations in a landmark judgment.
In a November 25 letter addressed to Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), named Brig Gen Richard Tukachungurwa as the new chairperson of the GCM.
‘In accordance with Sections 192, 193, and 195 of the UPDF Act as amended and acting on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, I have appointed persons below as head and members of the General Court Martial,’ reads part of President Museveni’s communication to the CDF.
Brig Gen Tukachungurwa replaces Brig Gen Robert Freeman Mugabe, whose single term ended earlier this year. Until his appointment, Gen Tukachungurwa served as Judge Advocate of the now-frozen GCM, guiding the court on points of law.
The newly-appointed members of the GCM are Col Simon Wankandya Tusah, Col Asha Patra, Col Frederick Kangwamu, Col Raphael Mugisha, Lt Col Nasser Igambi Mohammedie, Maj Samuel Moses Amodoi, Maj Emmanuel Arihaihi, Maj Abubaker Nyombi, and Maj Denis Chemtai.
The President also named Lt Col David Drani Epalu (4th Division) and Lt Col Hassan Mulyanti Yaqoub (Special Forces Group) as chairpersons of the Division court martials.
How did we get here?
The reconstitution of the GCM follows a January 31 Supreme Court ruling that declared the trial of civilians in military courts unconstitutional.
In the lead judgment, Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo held that military courts lack the independence and safeguards required under the Constitution, since their powers derive from the UPDF High Command.
The court ordered all ongoing civilian trials before military courts to cease and be transferred to civilian courts. The justices also proposed reforms, including transforming the GCM into a division of the High Court and limiting military tribunals to disciplinary offences.
President Museveni and Gen Muhoozi, however, publicly criticised the ruling, calling it ‘regrettable’ and ‘unacceptable.’
In response, the government fast-tracked the UPDF (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which reinstated military jurisdiction over civilians under what it termed ‘exceptional circumstances.’ Parliament passed the Bill on May 20, and the President signed it into law on June 16. Critics argued the legislation was aimed at targeting members of the Opposition. Under the new law, military courts may try civilians accused of possessing military equipment, aiding soldiers in serious crimes, or accompanying troops on operations. The law also introduces a tiered military court structure; Unit, Division, and General Court Martial with clearer appeal routes up to the Court of Appeal.
A law under fire
The UPDF Amendment Act is already facing legal challenges. The National Unity Platform (NUP) and other petitioners have filed cases in the Constitutional Court, arguing that the law undermines the Supreme Court decision and revives unconstitutional practices.
Critics maintain that the legislation was rushed through to target political opponents ahead of the 2026 elections.
Reactions
Former Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka, whose case resulted in the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling, last evening, said the government’s move remains illegal.
‘What they have done is still illegal, and in due course, I will be going back to court to challenge it,’ he said.
‘Parliament doesn’t have the powers to create a court at the same level as the High Court. They are supposed to create subordinate courts only.’ He accused the government of using the General Court Martial as a ‘scarecrow’ against Opposition politicians during election season.
Kampala Mayor Erias Lukwago, who has represented several political figures, including remanded Dr Kizza Besigye, previously tried in military courts, described the new developments as ‘the reincarnation of the old General Court Martial.’
‘The new chairman was part of the former kangaroo court, and he could be worse than Gen Freeman,’ Lukwago said, accusing the tribunal of persecuting government critics. Renowned constitutional lawyer Peter Walubiri also earlier warned that the reconstituted military court system violates constitutional principles and is designed to suppress political dissent.
Recommendations
In his January 31 landmark judgment, the Chief Justice went on to make several recommendations to the Executive and Legislative arms of government for consideration as a viable alternative in the establishment of the military courts;
(a) Administratively establish the General Court Martial (GCM) as a division of the High Court without the need to create a new court, with jurisdiction to handle capital criminal cases involving both military officers and any civilians who would exceptionally fall within its ambit; with magistrates within the division handling offenses falling under their jurisdiction.
(b) Limit the functions of Unit Disciplinary Committees (UDCs) and Summary Trial Authorities (STAs) to handling strictly disciplinary offenses, with no power to impose sentences of imprisonment.
(c) Utilise the existing magistracy to handle the rest of the criminal cases (other than disciplinary offenses) committed in Uganda (which are currently falling within the docket of the UDCs). The subordinate military courts can handle criminal cases at the level of Chief Magistrate’s Courts (for offenses attracting life imprisonment and those carrying a sentence of 25 years or less). Or;
(d) With the advice of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), appoint civilians with the requisite professional legal qualifications to serve as judicial officers in the current subordinate military courts. They would exercise jurisdiction over offences triable by subordinate courts and should have the same privileges and safeguards as their counterparts in the civil courts. Or;
(e) Amend the Constitution to establish superior courts within the military court system under Art 129; and clothe them with the requisite jurisdiction and guarantee of independence and impartiality to try specific military offenses of a capital nature and all other capital offenses under existing laws, committed by military personnel. Or
(f) Provide in the UPDF Act for the High Court to sit as a court martial with the power to try all criminal capital offenses within the High Court jurisdiction, and those unique to the military that attract a maximum of life and death sentences. Grant the Chief Justice powers to assign judges to the military courts. A select number of military personnel can act as assessors. Appeals to the Court Martial Appeal Courts would follow the same format, with the Court of Appeal sitting as such. Magistrate’s courts would assume the jurisdiction over all other offenses of a subordinate courts.
(g) Make provision in the UPDF Act for the trial of civilians in military courts to be only under limited circumstances; and only after the State has concretely demonstrated to the court by verifiable facts, and by objective and serious reasons, the need and justification for recourse to the military court. This must only apply where, in relation to the specific class or category of persons and offences in question, ordinary courts are not in a position to undertake such a trial.
(h) Make provision in the UPDF Act for appeals from military courts and tribunals, corresponding to appeals in ordinary courts.