Muhammad Kakembo has written this column for The Observer about the long-running dispute in Uganda over the constitutionality of trying civilians in courts-martial. Excerpt:
In a landmark ruling last week, five Supreme court judges unanimously held that military courts were inadvertently established as disciplinary mechanisms for active UPDF members.
This pronouncement arose during the hearing of an unrelated case involving Lt Ambrose Ogwang, a UPDF officer convicted of murder by the Court Martial and sentenced to death. Ogwang’s conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal, but the government appealed to the Supreme court.
The director of Public Prosecutions objected to the Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction over military court rulings, and the Supreme court upheld this objection. Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, leading the panel of judges, provided clarity on the jurisdiction and role of military courts.
She stated, “The UPDF courts were better placed to address discipline issues within the rank and file of the armed soldiers… It appears to have been contemplated that the UPDF courts should hold soldiers accountable through a parallel judicial framework, distinct from the courts of judicature.”
Her statement, supported by fellow judges Mike Chibita, Catherine Bamugemereire, Christopher Izama Madrama, and Stephen Musota, underscored the intention of the legislature to confine military courts to UPDF-related cases.
The Ogwang decision is not yet online, and it is unclear from the article whether the quoted remarks were simply comments from the bench during oral argument or something in a written decision. The court has under advisement another case that squarely raises the constitutional issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).