By KT Reporter
Chief Justice, Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo says he did not require even an iota of courage to rule against the trial of civilians before the military courts. Owiny-Dollo and other judges in January ruled that trials of civilian under the court martial were unconstitutional.
The court ruled that courts Martial lacked jurisdiction to try civilians. The Supreme Court’s rulings was widely acclaimed. Some praised the Chief Justices and other justices of the Court for gathering courage to rule against section of the UPDF Act in a constitutional petition by former legislator Michael Kabaziruka.
The matter about the need for courage among judicial officers in such controversial issues was raised by former Uganda Law Society President, Senior Counsel, Francis Gimara while delivering a keynote address 8th Memorial Lecture in honor of Benedicto Kiwanuka.
“To honor Benedicto Kiwanuka’s legacy, we must defend justice. In our current context, this means we should be very deliberate in fostering a culture of civic courage. And by so doing will be truly honoring him,” said Gimara.
Benedicto Kiwanuka, Uganda’s first Prime Minister and Chief Justice is believed to have been murdered by Iddi Amin’s military in 1972. The Judiciary has been holding the annual event commemorates Kiwanuka’s enduring legacy. The Chief Justice disagreed with his Francis Gimara that judges needed courage to rule on any matter before them.
“I doubt that Benedicto Kiwanuka was courageous. If it requires a judge to be courageous to render justice that is very dangerous. To my understanding, Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka was a conscientious person. A man who stood by his oath which are the principles that govern the exercise of judicial mandate,” he said.
Owiny-Dollo further noted that had Chief Justice Benedicto Kiwanuka listened to Idd Amin, or the climate of the day, then he would have gathered courage to write that ruling against his conscience.
“The courage he would have need was to come up with a ruling that was contrary to the law” he argued.
Then he spoke for himself on the ruing delivered at the end of January. Some have described his rule and choice of words therein as stellar.
“My young brother has cited Kabaziruka case. I can speak for myself. I never required even an iota of courage to interpret the constitution vs the UPDF Act as amended and to come out with the decisions which I made. No courage at all,” he said.
The trial of civilians under the military continues to generate debate. Many of the suspects who were under trial before the Supreme Court ruling remain in jail.
The Supreme Court ordered the military to halt all ongoing trials of civilians and to transfer them to the civilian court system.
After the ruling, Parliament passed the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (Amendment) Bill 2025 reinstating the trial of civilians before military courts.
The Bill has since been assented to by President Museveni. Human rights activists have indicated that the law as it stands now allows the military courts to try nonmilitary personnel for alleged crimes connected to the army, such as committing offenses in collaboration with soldiers.
The National Unity Platform (NUP) petitioned the Constitutional Court, challenging the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (Amendment) Act, 2025. It argues that the law goes against the Constitution and disrespects the January 30th 2025 Supreme Court ruling.
-URN. Give us feedback on this story through our email: kamwokyatimes@gmail.com
