Leading attorney interviewed about Ugandan decision

Elison Karuhanga, a leading attorney in Kampala, has given this memorable interview to NilePost. Excerpts:

The military now has clarity. This decision was not against the army but rather in favor of the Constitution. It benefits everyone, including the military, because it clearly distinguishes between military discipline and civilian justice. This ruling prevents these two areas from being conflated.

While the military may have initially been surprised by the ruling, it now has the opportunity to adapt and align its processes accordingly. The Supreme Court even suggested amendments to the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act, which establishes the Court Martial. This highlights the need for trials to be fair and just.

Ultimately, this ruling reinforces a fundamental principle: trials must be fair. Every accused person must have a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This decision strengthens the Constitution’s principles, benefiting not just civilians but also the military. It is a victory for the rule of law, not a threat to security. If we compromise liberty and the rule of law for security, we risk losing both.

Senior Attorney Karuhanga also discussed the proactive role of the bar:

How has Isaac Ssemakadde’s election as Uganda Law Society President and his ‘radical new bar’ approach, which challenges traditional norms in the legal profession, influenced the court’s decision on military trials and shaped Uganda’s judicial landscape?

It certainly had an impact. Ssemakadde campaigned strongly on the need for demilitarization of the legal system, and many people initially did not understand what he meant. However, he has since made the issue of the General Court Martial a cornerstone of his advocacy.

Beyond that, there was growing frustration within the legal community about how long it took for the court to deliver its decision. For four years, we have been waiting for constitutional guidance on this matter. In his judgment, the Chief Justice was visibly displeased with criticisms regarding the delay, arguing that various panel changes and procedural issues contributed to it. Nevertheless, justice delayed is justice denied.

In those four years, individuals were tried, convicted, and sentenced without the constitutional guidance that was long overdue. This is why the radical new bar was effective not necessarily because they influenced the ruling’s content, but because they continuously called for a resolution. They emphasized that the court needed to rule, regardless of the outcome.