Military courts: The front line of Uganda’s war on dissent

Al Jazeera - Apr 18th, 2025

As Uganda prepares for its 2026 general elections, military courts have become a focal point of controversy due to their role in prosecuting civilians, notably opposition figures like Kizza Besigye and his aide, Obeid Lutale. Their abduction from Kenya and subsequent trial in a Ugandan military court has provoked national and international outrage. Despite a Supreme Court ruling deeming such trials unconstitutional, President Museveni and his son, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, insist on continuing this practice, highlighting a concerning trend of repression ahead of the elections. The involvement of high-profile figures such as Martha Karua in the defense team has further amplified the issue, turning it into a litmus test for Uganda's military justice system.

This situation underscores longstanding tensions between military power and civilian rights in Uganda. The trial of civilians in military courts contravenes international human rights standards, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The persistence of this practice has incited broader discussions on human rights and governance in Uganda, with calls from various human rights organizations for the immediate cessation of these trials. The implications are profound, as this could set a precedent for future governance and human rights practices in Uganda, especially in the context of the looming elections and potential political transitions within the ruling party. The case remains emblematic of the broader struggle for democratic norms and the rule of law in the region.

Amnesty International Human Rights Supreme Court Ruling Uganda Military Courts Kizza Besigye Yoweri Museveni 2026 Uganda Elections Muhoozi Kainerugaba

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the contentious use of military courts for civilians in Uganda, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2026 elections. It effectively highlights the legal and human rights implications of this practice, supported by credible sources such as Amnesty International and the Uganda Supreme Court. The narrative is well-structured and clear, making complex issues accessible to a general audience.

While the article presents a strong case against the use of military courts, it could benefit from a more balanced perspective by including detailed responses from Ugandan authorities. The focus on human rights violations and political repression is timely and relevant, engaging readers and potentially influencing public opinion and policy discussions.

Overall, the article succeeds in raising awareness about an important issue with significant implications for justice and governance in Uganda. Its strengths lie in its clarity, source quality, and public interest, although it could enhance transparency and balance by incorporating a wider range of perspectives and more explicit sourcing.

Accuracy

The article is largely accurate, with its main claims supported by credible sources. The report on Uganda's Supreme Court ruling against military trials for civilians is corroborated by multiple sources, including Human Rights Watch. The claim about the abduction of Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale in Nairobi and their subsequent trial in Uganda's military court aligns with documented events. However, some claims, such as President Museveni and General Muhoozi Kainerugaba's intent to continue using military courts, require further verification through official statements or actions. The article accurately cites international standards that prohibit military trials for civilians, supported by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Balance

The article primarily presents the perspective of those opposed to the use of military courts for civilians, particularly highlighting the cases of opposition figures like Kizza Besigye. While it mentions the government's stance, it predominantly focuses on criticisms and potential human rights violations. The narrative could be more balanced by including more detailed responses from Ugandan authorities or supporters of the military justice system. The inclusion of quotes from religious leaders and members of the ruling party adds some balance, but the overall tone leans towards highlighting repression and dissent.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a logical sequence, making it easy to follow. The language is clear and concise, effectively conveying the complex issue of military trials for civilians in Uganda. The use of specific examples, such as Kizza Besigye's case, helps to illustrate the broader narrative. While the article is generally neutral in tone, the emphasis on human rights violations may influence perception. Overall, the clarity of the article supports comprehension of the issue.

Source quality

The article seems to derive its information from credible sources, such as Amnesty International and statements from the Uganda Supreme Court. It references specific events and legal rulings that are documented by reputable organizations. However, the article would benefit from direct citations or quotes from government officials to strengthen its claims about the intentions of President Museveni and his son. Overall, the reliance on established human rights organizations and legal bodies enhances the source quality.

Transparency

The article provides a clear narrative and context regarding the use of military courts in Uganda, particularly in the lead-up to the 2026 elections. However, it lacks explicit mention of the methodology used to gather information or any potential conflicts of interest. The author’s affiliation with Amnesty International is disclosed, which provides some transparency about the perspective presented. More detailed citations or references to specific reports or interviews would improve transparency.