A note on the prosecution of civilians by DRC military courts

Legality of Prosecutions Brought by the Military Prosecuturs' Office Against Civilians in the DRC: Analysis in Light of the Constitutional Principle of Legality, by François Lukangila N'subi and Jules Mupenda Kangamina can be downloaded here. Abstract:

This article examines the legality of prosecutions initiated by the military auditor against civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo in light of the constitutional principle of legality and the right to one's natural judge. It demonstrates that, under the Constitution and the Military Judicial Code, military courts are, in principle, not competent to prosecute civilians, except in narrowly defined and legally established exceptions.

Through a legal, doctrinal, and jurisprudential analysis, the study highlights recurring abuses in judicial practice, where civilians are prosecuted by military prosecutors for ordinary criminal offenses that clearly fall under the jurisdiction of civil courts. The article emphasizes that the military prosecutor's office is a specialized institution primarily tasked with maintaining discipline within the armed forces and related services.

The study further exposes the illegality of certain practices involving the collection of judicial fees by military magistrates, particularly transactional fines and bail for provisional release, which are explicitly prohibited by military law. Such practices constitute a violation of the principle of equality before the law and may give rise to disciplinary, civil, and criminal liability. Ultimately, the article calls for strict enforcement of constitutional and legal provisions governing military jurisdiction, in order to safeguard fundamental rights, ensure legal certainty, and strengthen the rule of law in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Sde Teiman (another in a series)

Michael Sfard writes here for +972 about the dénouement of the Sde Teiman affair in Israel. "The truth is that the reason for abandoning the facade of law enforcement is not evidentiary difficulties or harm to procedural fairness, but rather a change in the constellation of pressures applied to the Israeli legal system as a whole."

A habit Pakistan cannot break

Pakistan is now subjecting civilians to military coufrt trials in the Gilgit-Baltistan autonomous province. Details here. News18 reports:

The Inspector General of Police (IGP) for the region has formally declared that any protesters challenging the presence or authority of the Pakistan Army will now face the jurisdiction of military tribunals. This directive effectively criminalises legitimate dissent, turning political protest into an “army crime" and sparking a wave of legal and international outrage.

The insecurity of the current administration has been laid bare by the targeting of high-profile local figures. Among those now facing the weight of this military-legal machinery is Ehsan Ali, a 70-year-old veteran lawyer and activist. Ali was arrested following a speech delivered during an Iftar gathering—a traditional religious and social event—proving that the state now views even community dialogue as a direct threat to its stability. By branding a septuagenarian lawyer a military-grade threat, Rawalpindi is effectively imposing a form of “martial law by stealth" on a territory that Pakistan itself technically classifies as disputed, yet governs with colonial-era rigidity.

Who's on first?

Remember how the Supreme Court of Uganda invalidated the trial of civilians by court-martial. Now, a year later, numerous cases remain in limbo. Details here. Excerpt:

Adding complexity, the UPDF Amendment Act 2025 reintroduced provisions allowing military courts to handle cases under exceptional circumstances.

While the government argues the amendments improve transparency and independence within military courts, critics contend they contradict the Supreme Court ruling and risk expanding military jurisdiction over civilians.

For detainees caught in this legal limbo, the consequences are severe. Many remain incarcerated without clear legal status, as military courts no longer have jurisdiction but civilian courts have not yet assumed responsibility.

Legal experts warn that urgent intervention is required, either through legislative clarification, administrative coordination, or clear directives from the Judiciary and DPP, to prevent further erosion of public trust in Uganda’s justice system.

Can India's Armed Forces Tribunal hold the government in contempt for disobeying final orders?

Not if you ask the Delhi High Court. In this RawLaw article, the author summarizes (and provides a. downloaded copy of) the High Court's Feb. 23, 2026 decision in Union of India v. Dev. Excerpt from the article:

This ruling significantly clarifies the scope of contempt jurisdiction under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act. It prevents judicial overreach while safeguarding enforceability of tribunal orders.

The decision underscores that statutory tribunals cannot assume powers not conferred by Parliament. At the same time, it ensures that members of the Armed Forces are not left remediless, as High Courts retain contempt jurisdiction to enforce AFT orders.