Inside Uganda’s New Military Law: What the 2025 UPDF Bill Means To You

Kampala – The government of Uganda has finally tabled the highly contentious Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill, 2025, before Parliament.

The 143-page bill, which seeks to overhaul the existing UPDF Act, introduces 84 clauses that aim to redefine the scope and application of military law in Uganda.

Defence and Veteran Affairs Minister Jacob Oboth Oboth presented the bill for parliamentary consideration, a move that has triggered widespread debate among legal experts, human rights defenders, and the political opposition.

Military Courts and Civilian Trials Resurface

At the heart of the controversy is a provision permitting military courts to try civilians under what the bill terms “exceptional circumstances.”

This development comes just months after a landmark Supreme Court ruling on January 31, 2025, declared it unconstitutional for military courts to prosecute civilians and ordered the transfer of such cases to civilian courts.

While the bill appears to acknowledge the court’s ruling, critics argue that it circumvents its intent.

Forexample, the proposed law allows for the trial of civilians in military courts where national security, military interests, or possession of military equipment is involved, but it fails to define what constitutes “exceptional circumstances,” a loophole analysts say could be exploited.

Renowned human rights lawyer Nicholas Opiyo has questioned the intent behind the clause, suggesting it may be an attempt to sidestep the court’s judgment under the guise of compliance.

“The language in the bill may appear to comply with the Supreme Court decision, but in essence, it undermines the ruling. The ambiguity risks reintroducing military trials for civilians under broad and potentially abusive terms,” Opiyo said.

Expanded Scope of Military Law Raises Red Flags

Clause 30 of the bill introduces sweeping changes by expanding those who fall under military jurisdiction through a proposed Section 117A. The categories now include:

• Family Members and Associates: Individuals living with or accompanying UPDF personnel during deployment, including spouses and children, may now be subjected to military law. Critics warn that this extends military reach into private life.
• Persons ‘Engaged’ with the Military: The bill references individuals involved in “engagements” with the military, without defining what constitutes such engagement, potentially bringing a wide range of civilians, including contractors, suppliers, or media, under military law.
• Possession of Military Equipment: Civilians found in possession of firearms, including legally owned pistols and AK-47s, or items like ammonium nitrate—commonly used in agriculture and mining—could now face prosecution under military law.
• Military Attire: Clause 7B introduces a broader definition of restricted attire, including civilian clothing such as Kaunda suits in specific colours (love green, sky blue, and coffee brown), now deemed military dress.
• Aiding or Abetting Military Offences: Civilians accused of assisting persons subject to military law in crimes like treason, murder, or cattle rustling would also fall under military jurisdiction.
• Impersonation of Military Personnel: Individuals wearing or possessing military uniforms or paraphernalia without authorization risk facing prosecution in military courts.

While this may curb impersonation, critics argue the clause could be misused to suppress dissent.

Legal Concerns and Human Rights Implications

Legal observers have raised concerns about the bill’s vague terminology, particularly its lack of precise definitions for “exceptional circumstances” and “engagement,” which could be manipulated to widen the military’s authority over civilians.

“There is an unmistakable shift toward the militarisation of justice, and this bill, if passed in its current form, could erode the hard-won protections of civil liberties,” said a senior constitutional lawyer who preferred anonymity.

The proposed changes are being introduced at a time of heightened political tension, and some see the bill as a potential tool for suppressing political opponents and activists.