Bobi Wine who penned his response on his X-account on Saturday, accused the president of manipulating the legal system to crush dissent and silence opposition.
“Museveni’s claim that the military courts are crucial for stabilizing the country is an outright lie,” Bobi Wine said. “In his desperate bid to cling to power, Museveni has turned the military into a tool of oppression rather than defence. His praise for these so-called ‘efficient’ courts stands in stark contrast to the grim reality faced by innocent Ugandans languishing in prison, targeted merely for opposing his dictatorship.”
Bobi Wine highlighted several cases of political persecution, including the detention of Dr Kizza Besigye, who was abducted in Kenya and later imprisoned by military court orders. He also referenced his own experience following the 2018 Arua incident, where he was falsely charged with possession of firearms and subjected to a military trial, a process he described as “a concoction of lies designed to imprison and discredit the opposition.”
The opposition leader stressed that Museveni’s assertion that civilians could appeal military court decisions in civilian courts is misleading, referencing a recent Supreme Court ruling that confirmed civilian courts cannot hear appeals from military tribunals. “There are no remedies for those wrongfully tried and convicted in these kangaroo courts,” Bobi Wine said, calling them a “weapon” used by the regime to persecute, not prosecute.
Bobi Wine also pointed to the case of 19 opposition members recently released after years of detention, underscoring the inhumane conditions they faced during their time in custody. “They were forced to plead guilty, not because they were criminals, but because they stood up for freedom and against Museveni’s tyranny,” he added.
Bobi Wine emphasized the constitutional illegality of trying civilians in military courts, calling it an assault on Uganda’s legal framework and international human rights standards. “The Constitution is clear: military tribunals are for military personnel, not civilians. What we are seeing today is an illegal, dangerous system that undermines the rule of law and puts every Ugandan at risk.”
He added; “This is not about law and order,” he said. “It is about silencing the people, maintaining a dictatorship, and keeping power by any means necessary. True stability can only come through justice and respect for the rule of law, not through fear and repression.”
Meanwhile, unlike in the constitutions of other African countries such as Botswana and Lesotho, where the relationship between the High Court and courts-martial is stipulated, the Ugandan Constitution 1995 (the Constitution) does not deal with this relationship. The Constitution is also silent on the question of whether courts-martial have jurisdiction over civilians.
The Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces Act (the UPDF Act) creates different types of court-martial with varying jurisdictions (section 197). The Act also provides (section 119) for the circumstance in which the General Court Martial has jurisdiction over civilians and appeals against the decisions of the General Court Martial lie to the Court Martial Appeal Court, which is the final appellate court except in cases where the offender is sentenced to death or life imprisonment.
According to Regulation 20(2) of the UPDF (Court Martial Appeal Court) Regulations, in case an offender is sentenced to death or life imprisonment and his/her sentence is upheld by the Court Martial Appeal Court, he/she has a right to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
Since 2003, Ugandan courts have grappled with the issues of whether courts-martial are courts of judicature within the meaning of Article 129(1) of the Constitution or organs of the UPDF and, therefore, part of the Executive under Article 210 of the Constitution and whether courts-martial have jurisdiction over civilians. Judges of the Supreme Court Constitutional Court and Court of Appeal have often disagreed on these issues.
- Latest
- Trending
