Uganda’s judicial system has been plagued by the misuse of technicalities, undermining justice and democracy. This phenomenon is closely tied to the militarisation of politics, where the regime’s emphasis on control and obedience supersedes the rule of law.
Militarisation of politics
Since 1986, Uganda’s politics has been characterised by a growing militarisation, where military officers hold key government positions and security forces influence policy decisions. Dissent is met with force and intimidation, and institutions are weakened or co-opted.
Technicalities as a tool of control
In this context, technicalities have become a tool for the regime to silence opposition voices, suppress dissent, and maintain power. Examples include:
● Rwanyarare & Another v Attorney General (1997)
● Serapio Rukundo v Attorney General (1997)
● Uganda Journalists Safety Committee and Another v Attorney General (1997)
● Abdallah Walusimbi and Another v Wadika Nanayi and Another (2026)
● Namugosa Joyce v Nabwonso Kanyole (2026)
Impact on justice and democracy
The misuse of technicalities has severe consequences, including:
● Denying citizens access to justice
● Undermining the rule of law
● Perpetuating impunity
● Eroding trust in the judicial system
● Stifling dissent and opposition voices
The Bantustanisation connection
The use of technicalities is part of a broader pattern of Bantustanisation in Uganda, where institutions are manipulated to maintain power and control. This process fragments society, creates dependency, and suppresses dissent.
Recent developments
President Yoweri Tibuhaburwa Museveni has signed the UPDF Amendment Bill into law as the UPDF Act 2025, allowing military courts to try civilians accused of collaborating with soldiers or possessing military items.
This move contradicts a January 2025 Supreme Court ruling declaring such trials unconstitutional. The law introduces a structured military court system with legally qualified chairs and provides appeal routes up to the civilian Court of Appeal.
The Uganda Law Society plans to challenge the constitutionality of the UPDF Act 2025, arguing it undermines the rule of law and constitutional governance.
Opposition leaders and human rights groups criticize the law, saying it targets specific individuals and was not brought in good faith.
Implications for justice and democracy
The UPDF Act 2025 has far-reaching implications for Uganda’s justice system and democracy:
● Erosion of judicial independence: By allowing military courts to try civilians, the law undermines the authority of civilian courts and perpetuates a culture of impunity.
● Suppression of dissent: The law can be used to silence opposition voices and critics of the regime, further stifling democratic debate and accountability.
● Undermining human rights: The law risks violating international human rights standards, particularly the right to a fair trial and the principle of equality before the law.
● Slippery slope: The UPDF Act 2025 sets a precedent for further militarisation of Uganda’s politics and erosion of democratic institutions.
● Creation of a silent, fearful, inactive, and docile population: The enthusiastic implementation of the Act, celebrated by President Museveni and his son, suggests a deliberate effort to intimidate and silence Ugandans, creating a culture of fear and apathy.
Recommendations
● Judicial reforms to limit the misuse of technicalities
● Increased transparency in court proceedings
● Training for judges on the impact of technicalities on justice
● Public awareness campaigns on the importance of substantive justice
● Repeal or amendment of the UPDF Act 2025 to align with constitutional and international human rights standards.
By Oweyegha-Afunaduula, Conservation Biologist Center for Critical Thinking and Alternative Analysis.
