Museveni’s War on the Judiciary: Why Parliament Cannot Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling on Civilians in the Court Martial
Museveni’s Stance: A Fight Against the People By rejecting the Supreme Court’s ruling, Museveni is not only attacking the judiciary but also the sovereign will of the Ugandan people. The Constitution vests judicial power in the people through independent courts, meaning that undermining the Supreme Court is an attack on citizens' constitutional rights.
Uganda Today Edition: Museveni’s War on the Judiciary: Why Parliament Cannot Overturn the Supreme Court Ruling on Civilians in the Court Martial
On January 31, 2025, Uganda’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that annulled the trial of civilians in the General Court Martial, marking a significant step in upholding constitutional justice. However, President Yoweri Museveni, visibly displeased with the decision, has vowed to push Parliament to “correct” what he termed a “wrong decision.” This stance not only undermines judicial independence but also contradicts Article 92 of Uganda’s Constitution, making his efforts legally impossible.
Article 92 and the Separation of Powers
Article 92 of the 1995 Constitution of Uganda explicitly states:
“Parliament shall not pass any law to alter the decision or judgment of any court as between the parties to the decision or judgment.”
This provision safeguards the separation of powers between the three arms of government—the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary—by ensuring that once a court has made a ruling, Parliament cannot retroactively alter it. Museveni’s proposal to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling would therefore amount to an unconstitutional attempt to usurp judicial authority.
Judicial Precedents: When Parliament’s Attempts Failed
Uganda’s legal history provides multiple examples where attempts to legislatively reverse court rulings have been nullified under Article 92. Two key cases demonstrate why Museveni’s approach is doomed to fail:
- Ssemogerere & Others v. Attorney General (2004)
- Parliament passed a law attempting to nullify a constitutional ruling.
- The Constitutional Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional as it violated Article 92.
- Significance: Reinforced the principle that Parliament cannot retroactively change court rulings.
- Male Mabirizi v. Attorney General (2021)
- Parliament amended laws governing the election of the Leader of the Opposition, a move seen as undermining a prior court decision.
- The court ruled that laws cannot specifically target past judicial decisions for reversal.
- Significance: Clarified that Article 92 allows prospective law-making but forbids retrospective interference.
These cases establish that Museveni’s plan is dead on arrival—no law can be enacted to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling without violating Article 92.
Museveni’s Stance: A Fight Against the People
By rejecting the Supreme Court’s ruling, Museveni is not only attacking the judiciary but also the sovereign will of the Ugandan people. The Constitution vests judicial power in the people through independent courts, meaning that undermining the Supreme Court is an attack on citizens’ constitutional rights.
Furthermore, his stance contradicts the separation of powers doctrine, which ensures that:
- The Judiciary interprets the law.
- The Legislature makes the law.
- The Executive enforces the law.
Museveni’s push to use Parliament to undo a court ruling blurs these roles, setting a dangerous precedent for authoritarianism.
Lord Mayor Lukwago: ‘Museveni Must Eat His Humble Pie’
As legal experts and opposition voices weigh in, Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, who also served as counsel for Dr. Kizza Besigye, has strongly warned the President against his unconstitutional moves. Lukwago has called upon Museveni to accept the ruling and respect judicial authority.
Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago issues a stern warning to President Museveni, urging him to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling on the trial of civilians in the Court Martial.
Conclusion
President Museveni’s efforts to undermine the Supreme Court ruling are not only unconstitutional but also politically untenable. With Article 92 prohibiting Parliament from altering judicial decisions, and historical precedents nullifying such attempts, his plan is legally impossible. If Uganda is to remain a democracy, the rule of law must prevail over political expediency.
📍 Website: https://www.ugandatoday.co.ug
📱 WhatsApp: +256 702 239 337
🐦 X (formerly Twitter): @uganda43443 | @ugtodaynews (Uganda
📧 Email: ugandatodayedition@gmail.com
WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaNLnekInlqV6YbcnQ0d
Let’s help you grow your brand and keep your audience informed. Partner with Uganda Today—where your story matters in shaping the social and economic dynamics of the country
