Uganda's parliament introduces bill to let military courts try civilians
KAMPALA - The Ugandan government introduced a bill in parliament on Tuesday that would allow military tribunals to prosecute civilians, months after the country's Supreme Court ruled the practice unconstitutional.
The top court's January verdict forced the government to transfer the trial of opposition politician and former presidential candidate Kizza Besigye to a civilian court, where state prosecutors have charged him with several crimes including treason.
Political allies and lawyers for Besigye, who has lost to President Yoweri Museveni in four elections, say the accusations are politically motivated.
Minister of Defence Jacob Marksons Oboth introduced the "Uganda People's Defence Forces Bill, 2025" on the floor of the House on Tuesday, where it was referred to a House committee for scrutiny.
Civilians may be tried under military law in exceptional circumstances, such as when they are in "unlawful possession of arms, ammunition or equipment ordinarily being the monopoly of the defence forces," according to the draft law seen by Reuters.
Besigye was forcefully removed from the Kenyan capital Nairobi in November, and presented in a military court in neighbouring Uganda a few days later, where he was charged with offences including the illegal possession of firearms.
Kenya's government denied involvement in what it called Besigye's abduction.
The new bill also includes crimes of abetting or aiding a soldier to commit crimes including treason, murder and aggravated robbery, among others.
Human rights activists and opposition politicians have long accused Museveni's government of using military courts to prosecute opposition leaders and supporters on politically motivated charges.
The new law will be used to "persecute regime opponents and deal with the growing resistance against the regime," said David Lewis Rubongoya from the National Unity Platform (NUP), Uganda's largest opposition party.
Information Minister Chris Baryomunsi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
NUP's leader Bobi Wine said on Friday he plans to contest the presidential ballot due in January, in which Museveni is widely expected to seek reelection. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
AsiaOne
5 hours ago
- AsiaOne
South Korea President Lee's election law violation hearing postponed indefinitely, court says, Asia News
SEOUL — A Seoul court said on Monday (June 9) it will indefinitely postpone a trial of President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Lee was elected, that Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court. The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on Monday that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed. Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls parliament, is planning to pass a bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported on Monday. The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said. [[nid:718837]]
Straits Times
5 hours ago
- Straits Times
South Korea President Lee's election law violation hearing postponed indefinitely, court says
South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May that Mr Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid. PHOTO: REUTERS SEOUL - A Seoul court said on June 9 it will indefinitely postpone a trial of President Lee Jae-myung on charges of violating election law in 2022. South Korea's Supreme Court ruled in May, before Mr Lee was elected, that Mr Lee had violated election law by publicly making "false statements" during his 2022 presidential bid, and sent the case back to an appeals court. The Seoul High Court, which had scheduled a hearing for the case on June 18, said on June 9 that it will postpone the hearing "to be decided later" without a date, a court spokesperson confirmed. Mr Lee's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The court said its decision to postpone the hearing was due to "Constitution Article 84", without elaborating. South Korea's Constitution, Article 84, says a sitting president is "not subject to criminal prosecution while in office" for most crimes. However, legal experts are divided on whether that applies to ongoing trials that were already prosecuted before a president was elected. The National Court Administration under the Supreme Court gave as its opinion that judges of each court where Mr Lee's trials are being held will have to decide whether to stop or proceed, according to its statement to a lawmaker in May. "The court in charge of hearing the case will determine whether Article 84 of the Constitution should be applied to a criminal defendant who was elected in the presidential election," the statement said. Mr Lee's ruling Democratic Party, which controls Parliament, is planning to pass a Bill this week which suspends ongoing trials for the incumbent president, local broadcaster KBS reported on June 9. The Constitutional Court may be asked to rule whether the Bill is unconstitutional, legal experts have said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 days ago
- Straits Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The US Supreme Court most recently let the Trump administration end temporary legal status provided to migrants for humanitarian reasons. PHOTO: REUTERS Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings The US Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies – mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signalled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Mr Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Mr Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on May 30 lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the US Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern US history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Dr Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' he added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Mr Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Mr Trump during his first term as president. 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice – on April 7 and on May 16 – have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Mr Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention centre in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster', the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The US government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on US soil,' said Professor Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, she said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States'. A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Mr Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Mr Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return him to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government US$6 million ($7.74 million). Dr Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Dr Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Mr Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Prof Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' she said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Mr Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017 to 2021. The Supreme Court gave Mr Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Mr Trump's bid to end a programme that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants – often called 'Dreamers' – who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Mr Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship – a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on US soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being sent there. The judge on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Judge Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Dr Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' he said. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
