Time's up in Kampala

Isaac Ssemakadde, president of the Uganda Law Society, has written this important op-ed in the Kampala Observer. Excerpt:

Forty-two (42) Justices in the Court of Appeal/Constitutional Court of Uganda and the Supreme Court of Uganda have spent 25 years examining whether section 119(1)(g)(h) of the UPDF Act is inconsistent with Articles 28(1), 126(1), and 210 of the Constitution—in simple terms, whether the trial of civilians in military courts is unconstitutional.

*  *  * 

Due to the Supreme court’s delay in delivering the Kabaziguruka judgment, our Supreme court is now perceived as an enabler of military repression of political opponents, stifling dissent and perpetuating a culture of fear.

For the sake of vulnerable communities like those in Karamoja at risk of continued military repression and human rights abuses, the Supreme court of Uganda must act with urgency and humanity to deliver the judgment in AG v. Michael Kabaziguruka.

It is therefore crucial that our meeting with the chief justice should result in a judgment date, to arrest public anger and curb long-term harm to our judiciary. We are aware that all appellate judges are in retreat in Mbarara from January 13-17, and from February 3-7 they will attend another calendar retreat known as the Judges’ Annual Conference.

Military Justice Reform: Judicial Independence and Military Judges

This essay by His Honour Judge Jeff Blackett, retired Judge Advocate General of His Majesty's Forces, and the Editor can be found here on SSRN.

Abstract

Recent years have seen many improvements in national military justice systems. One that has been successfully embraced by the United Kingdom -- reliance on civilian judges to preside at military courts -- has not been properly explored elsewhere (notably in the United States) but deserves to be. The authors suggest that this fundamental reform can be achieved without detriment to good order and discipline and with the positive benefit of improved judicial independence and stronger public confidence in the administration of justice.

Solid support now -- but not "from the beginning"

“From the beginning,* there was clear Congressional intent, solid support from Army leaders and commanders, and a collaborative effort among Army staff and Judge Advocates to define goals, allocate resources, and establish a clear mission and vision,” [Brig. Gen. Christopher A.] Kennebeck said.

From this Army JAG press release (emphasis added)

* Except that the Army leadership, like that of the other services, opposed the Gillibrand bill that created the special trial counsels (footnote added).

DAC-IPAD report on crime victims' rights

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault ion the Armed Forces has issued its January 2025 Report on Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights. Executive summary:

The Defense Advisory Committee on Investigation, Prosecution, and Defense of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces (DAC-IPAD) studied the enforcement of crime victims’ rights in the military, as codified in Article 6b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The DAC-IPAD’s study focused on four issues: (1) a crime victim’s standing to assert their Article 6b rights at the trial court, (2) jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) over a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus, (3) the time frame for the Courts of Criminal Appeals (CCAs) of the Military Departments and the CAAF to rule on a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus, and (4) the appellate standard of review applicable to a crime victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus. 

As part of its review, the DAC-IPAD compared the enforcement mechanisms in Article 6b with those in the federal Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), the statute upon which Article 6b is based. In doing so, the DAC-IPAD identified several differences between the enforcement mechanisms of the two statutes and considered whether there were military-specific reasons why the rights of crime victims in military courts-martial proceedings should be less robust than the rights of crime victims in federal courts. To help evaluate these differences, the DAC-IPAD heard the perspectives of military government and defense appellate counsel, military victims’ counsel, and civilian victims’ rights experts. 

The DAC-IPAD recommendations include a legislative proposal incorporating several amendments to Article 6b. T hese amendments would provide crime victims new standing to assert their rights initially at the trial court and would provide a new standard for appellate review of a victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus that is similar to the standard directed by the CVRA in federal court review of victims’ petitions. In addition, the DAC-IPAD recommends that Congress amend Article 6b to provide CAAF discretionary jurisdiction to review a victim’s petition for a writ of mandamus without the need for the victim to rely on certification from the Judge Advocate General of a Military Service to establish jurisdiction. 

Adopting these reforms will bring much-needed clarity and meaningful effect to victims’ rights established by Congress ten years ago and will more closely align the rights of crime victims in military courts-martial with the rights of victims in federal court.

Uganda and misuse of its court-martial

The Independent has this fine report on Uganda's misuse of its court-martial and the paralysis in its Supreme Court, which seems unable to bite the bullet about the impermissibility of trying civilians (including retirees such as Dr. Kizza Besigye) in military court. The article includes a useful summary of developments in other countries.