Your Judgements Against Civilians Are Illegal: Constitutional Court Blasts Court Martial’s Andrew Gutti As It Orders Transfer Of Civilian Cases Into Civil Courts

Your Judgements Against Civilians Are Illegal: Constitutional Court Blasts Court Martial’s Andrew Gutti As It Orders Transfer Of Civilian Cases Into Civil Courts

By Spy Uganda

Kampala: In a majority ruling of 3-2, the constitutional court yesterday ruled that although the Court Martial is a competent court under the 1995 Constitution, it is not independent and therefore can’t offer a fair trial to civilians with its powers are only limited to dealing with the discipline of serving officers within the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF).

Click Here To Read Full Ruling

“Emphasizing that the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial is limited to the provisions of the UPDF Act by necessary implication means that its jurisdiction does not extend to other Acts of parliament. The composition and the power of appointment of the Court Martial members by the UPDF High Command further emphasize its restrictive nature. Parliament intended that the jurisdiction of the General Court Martial extends only to the UPDF,” a ruling by justice Kenneth Kakuru reads in part.

The court’s ruling follows a 2016 petition by the then Nakawa MP Michael Kabaziguruka challenging his trial in the General Court Martial. Kabaziguruka was accused of being found with firearms – a preserve of armed forces. It was said then that he intended to use them to overthrow a democratically elected government of Uganda.

Kabaziguruka who was arrested and detained for several months denied the charges which he called politically motivated. Justices; Kenneth Kakuru, Remmy Kasule, and Hellen Obura argued that the UPDF Act was never intended to be an Act of general application. Kakuru specifically said that it is a statute of a special and limited application whose power only relates to UPDF alone.

“It does not extend to regulation or adjudication of crime set up under other legislation. Those functions are provided for in other Articles of the Constitution that establishes the judiciary, the police and prisons service and Directorate of Public Prosecutions among,” Kakuru’s judgment read in part.

“The General Court Martial, therefore, is a specialized court set up by parliament to deal with military discipline within the UPDF….it lacks all the tenets of an ordinary court of law established under chapter eight of the Constitution. The Court Martial is not part of the judiciary. It is part of the executive arm of government established under chapter twelve of the Constitution which provides for the country’s defense and national security.

Several attempts by the executive to place the General Court Martial under the same footing as courts of judicature has…originated confusion and discord among jurists, legal practitioners and scholars. It is simply trying to fit a square peg in a round hole,” Kakuru said.

He added that there cannot be a fair trial before a court that is not independent and impartial. He subsequently ruled that because Kabaziguruka is not a person subject to military law and his trial under the UPDF Act is unconstitutional, the charges brought against him under the UPDF Act are unconstitutional null and void, and of no effect.

“I would order his immediate release and discharge from the General Court Martial. His bail bond if any is ordered to be refunded,” the ruling that awarded him costs read in part.

The court also ruled that all those persons not subject to military law and are currently being tried before any military court, their cases should be transferred to civil courts under the direction of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) within 14 days from the date of the judgment.

Click Here To Read Full Ruling

“All those persons not subject to military law and who are currently serving sentences imposed by the authority of military courts contrary to the Constitution as set out in judgment should have their case files transferred to the High court criminal division for retrial or to be dealt with as the court may direct within 14 days of this judgment,” the judgment adds.

However, in their dissenting judgment, justices Christopher Madrama and Steven Musota ruled that for as long as civilians are subject to military law for example in the case of being found with military hardware, then the Court Martial has powers to try them.

Accessdome.com: an accessible web community

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *