Ugandan lawmakers pass bill to try civilians before military courts, defying concern and criticism
The contentious legislation was introduced earlier this year after the Supreme Court ruled that civilians can't be court-martialed, questioning the competence of untrained military officers to dispense justice.
The bill states that civilians can be court-martialed if their alleged offenses are 'in support of or in association with persons subject to military law.' It also says that presiding officers must be qualified in law.
But opposition figures, rights activists and others insist such legislation is an anti-democratic effort as the east African country heads into elections scheduled for 2026. They say the bill is a danger to everyone who opposes President Yoweri Museveni, an authoritarian leader who has held power in the east African country since 1986.
Some members of the opposition walked out of the parliamentary chamber before the bill was passed, protesting what they said was an illegality.
The legislation is an attempt to 'unconstitutionally grant judicial powers reserved for superior courts to subordinate military courts that have specialized jurisdiction to handle only military disciplinary offenses,' the Uganda-based rights group Chapter Four said in a statement.
Museveni is expected to sign the bill within days. The president and his son, army commander Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba, had condemned the Supreme Court's decision to effectively disband court-martials. Days after that ruling, government officials launched the process of introducing legislation to keep military courts active.
Museveni said in a statement following the court's decision that 'the country is not governed by the judges.' He is expected to run again in polls set for January 2026.
Many Ugandans expect an unpredictable political transition because the 80-year-old Museveni has no obvious successor within the ranks of the ruling National Resistance Movement party.
Some observers fear that in future he may step aside in favor of Kainerugaba in a bloodless coup. Kainerugaba has asserted his wish to succeed his father as president.
A long-time opposition leader, Kizza Besigye, has been jailed since November over alleged treason charges his lawyers say are politically motivated. Besigye, a qualified physician who retired from Uganda's military at the rank of colonel, is a former president of the Forum for Democratic Change party, for many years Uganda's most prominent opposition group.
Uganda has never witnessed a peaceful transfer of political power since independence from the British in 1962.
____
Follow AP's Africa coverage at: https://apnews.com/hub/africa
Rodney Muhumuza, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
The rizz kid: How a campus Communist turned conservative kingmaker put the ‘social' in ‘social movement'
Gen Z calls it 'rizz.' Conservative theorist Frank Meyer radiated it. Rizz is what Donald Trump exudes and Kamala Harris lacks, and this je ne sais quoi quality, at least to all who came before Gen Z brilliantly put a name on it, explains not just one's success on Hinge but whether a political figure can pull a crowd. Advertisement Marble-mouthed mumblers and shoegazers take note: It turns out people follow the very individuals in mass movements they follow around in social situations. Frank Meyer's 3D, pops-off-the-page life illustrates this truth. After the Newark-born Meyer acted as the pied piper of campus Communism in 1930s England, he remarkably became in America during the 1960s, as the title of my new biography puts it, the man who invented conservatism. Advertisement British intelligence conducted a black-bag job on his apartment, placed a mail cover on his correspondence and noted the bars he frequented, the tweed he wore and the frequent female company he kept as they tailed him. Nowhere in the 161 pages of the declassified Meyer files do agents memorialize on paper that the revolutionary they followed — described therein as 'the founder' of the student Communist movement — dated the big boss' daughter. The most Frank Meyer thing Frank Meyer ever did was enter into a relationship with Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald's youngest child as he conspicuously called for the violent overthrow of the British government the man led. Che, Lenin and Mao never pulled off such a brash caper. 'Come here at 7.0 — or if you don't like the idea of Downing Street — even though I am the sole occupant at the moment — fix any other place you like,' Sheila MacDonald wrote Meyer in one of their letters I discovered in an Altoona, Penn., warehouse during research for 'The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer,' out Aug. 19. Predictably, the British government sought to deport Meyer (and, predictably, Miss MacDonald volunteered to intervene). The same rizz that placed the prime minister's daughter in his arms brought a phalanx of famous Brits to his defense. Advertisement Clement Attlee, future prime minister, pleaded his case in Parliament. A petition signed by philosopher Bertrand Russell, 'Howards End' and 'A Passage to India' author E.M. Forster and Labour Party leader (and Angela Lansbury's grandfather) George Lansbury called the deportation 'discrimination' prompted by the cause célèbre's 'left-wing politics.' Students marched about London chanting, 'Free Frank Meyer!' Women desired his romantic attention. Rizz meant men wanted his company, too. In 1930, an unknown Pottstown, Penn., prep-school teacher plaintively petitioned Meyer for more 'scintillating conversations' and 'provocative' letters. He wished to again drink with Meyer and 'to take a Cook's Tour of this particular part of the world with you.' Without Meyer's company, he confessed, he inhabited an 'intellectual desert.' The sycophantic missive came from the typewriter of James A. Michener long before he won a Pulitzer Prize for 'Tales of the South Pacific.' Advertisement By 1949, when Meyer testified against former comrades in the Foley Square trial — the longest, most expensive court case in US history to that point — he had witnessed much evil. He knew that Prince Mirsky, the force who pushed him to join the Communist Party, had disappeared in a Soviet gulag; his protégé, Charles Darwin's great-grandson John Cornford, had died fighting in the Spanish Civil War; his boss on 'peace' activism, Walter Ulbricht (who later built the Berlin Wall), went about making the lives of East Germans hell; and his American idol, longtime party chief Earl Browder, had transformed overnight in Communist rhetoric from a brilliant, courageous leader into a perfidious enemy of the people. Slowly, he embraced a very different outlook. Quickly, and characteristically, the conservative convert became conservative pope. Present at the creation of National Review, the Conservative Party of New York, the Philadelphia Society, the American Conservative Union and Young Americans for Freedom, Meyer helped erect the skeletal structure of the conservative movement. Going to Woodstock meant something very different for 1960s young conservatives. Those making the obligatory pilgrimage to his farmhouse there included Joan Didion, who credited him as the editor who first published her freelance work, Garry Wills, who said he spent more time with this mentor in the late 1950s and early 1960s than anyone outside his family, and Heritage Foundation founder Ed Feulner. His philosophy, fusionism, became the default outlook of the American right from Barry Goldwater well through Ronald Reagan, who cheered that Meyer had 'fashioned a vigorous new synthesis of traditional and libertarian thought — a synthesis that is today recognized by many as modern conservatism.' What made conservatives so easily follow a former Communist? Rizz. Those doubting the power of rizz may wish to apply this test to every presidential election in their lifetimes: Did the winning candidate also win the rizz contest? Advertisement Undertaker-face John Kerry lost to George W. Bush in 2004. John McCain, who looked like he walked off the set of a black-and-white television show, lost to Technicolor Barack Obama in 2008. Monotone Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter with his ear-to-ear grin and mellifluous diction in 1976. And a fist-in-the-air, 'Fight'-shouting Donald Trump — far from the cranky, complaining COVID case of 2020 — triumphed over word-salad chef Kamala Harris in 2024. Frank Meyer understood the power of rizz long before Twitch streamer Kai Cenat popularized the term. They don't call them social movements for nothing. Daniel J. Flynn is the author of 'The Man Who Invented Conservatism: The Unlikely Life of Frank S. Meyer' (Encounter/ISI Books), an American Spectator senior editor and Hoover Institution visiting fellow.
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Rubio declares Russia has ‘get something' from peace deal as Putin demands Ukraine's Donetsk region
Secretary of State Marco Rubio underscored that both Russia and Ukraine will have to 'get something' out of a peace deal to end the war. Rubio didn't specify what concession Ukraine will have to make in order to get Russia to end its brutality, but hinted that it will likely be a tough ask. However, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin proposed taking all of the Ukrainian region of Donetsk — even the parts Ukraine currently controls — in exchange for a deal, The Post previously reported. Ukraine's leader has flatly rejected that idea. 3 Secretary of State Marco Rubio stressed that peace negotiations are going to result in both Russia and Ukraine making tough concessions. AP 'What it's going to take to stop the fighting, if we're being honest and serious here, is both sides are going to have to give, and both sides should expect to get something from this,' Rubio told CBS News' 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. 'It's very difficult because Ukraine obviously feels, you know, harmed, and rightfully so, because they were invaded,' he added. 'And the Russian side, because they feel like they got momentum in the battlefield.' Rubio didn't delve into specifics about the territorial concessions Ukraine will have to make, which is expected to be the topic of discussion between President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Trump during their White House meeting on Monday. 3 President Trump met with Russian leader Vladimir Putin for several hours on Friday. AP On Sunday, Trump reposted a user's remark on Truth Social that Ukraine will have to make territorial concessions to Russia in order to end the war. At Friday's summit in Alaska, Putin had demanded that Ukraine surrender the remaining quarter of Donetsk, a minerals-rich, Russian-speaking region, as part of a deal to end the war. In exchange, Putin expressed a willingness to freeze up fighting in the front lines of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, where Russia has struggled to make significant progress, Axios reported. Critics fear that, because of the heavy Ukrainian fortifications in Donetsk, if they were to surrender that to the Russians, the Kremlin could cut much further into Ukraine in the future. Former National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, who served under the Biden administration, cautioned that ceding land to Russia 'diplomatically' could 'just set Russia up to attack Ukraine in the future.' 'We definitely should not take Russia's word for it when they say, 'Oh, we won't do this again, even if they put it in legislation in Russia,'' Sullivan told 'Fox News Sunday.' Ahead of Trump's meeting with Putin in Alaska on Friday, the US president threatened to slap crippling secondary sanctions and tariffs on countries that import Russian oil. Rubio stressed that Trump is being cautious about pulling the trigger on those sanctions out of fear that it could end peace talks for an extended period of time. 'If this morning the president woke up and said I'm putting these terrible, strong sanctions on Russia, that's fine. [It] may make people feel good for a couple hours,' Rubio told Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'But here's what you're basically saying. You're saying talks are over. For the foreseeable future, for the next year or year-and-a-half, there's no more talks, because there's no one else in the world that can talk to him [Putin].' 3 Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is set to meet with President Trump in the White House on Monday. Getty Images The secretary of state also indicated that while Trump pivoted away from a ceasefire push to the pursuit of a full-fledged peace deal, a ceasefire is not out of the question. 'No, it's not off the table,' Rubio told NBC's 'Meet the Press' on Sunday. 'Now, whether there needs to be a ceasefire on the way there, well, we've advocated for that. Unfortunately, the Russians as of now, have not agreed to that.' Rubio also appeared to downplay the possibility of Russia getting all of the Ukrainian territory it has conquered as part of a deal — roughly 20% of Ukraine. 'If there's going to be a peace deal, it's not going to look like that,' Rubio said, referring to a graphic about the Ukrainian territory Russia occupies. 'But he [Putin] certainly is making demands.' 'He's certainly asking for things that the Ukrainians and others are not willing to be supportive of and that we're not going to push them to give. And the Ukrainians are asking for things that the Russians are not going to give up on.'
New York Post
a minute ago
- New York Post
Who's REALLY ‘destroying democracy' — after failing to win voters legitimately?
'Destroying democracy' — the latest theme of the left — can be defined in many ways. How about attempting to destroy constitutional, ancient and hallowed institutions simply to suit short-term political gains? So, who in 2020, and now once again, has boasted about packing the 156-year-old, nine-justice Supreme Court? Who talks frequently about destroying the 187-year-old Senate filibuster — though only when they hold a Senate majority? Who wants to bring in an insolvent left-wing Puerto Rico and redefine the 235-year-old District of Columbia — by altering the Constitution — as two new states solely to obtain four additional liberal senators? Who is trying to destroy the constitutionally mandated 235-year Electoral College by circumventing it with the surrogate 'The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact?' Does destroying democracy also entail weaponizing federal bureaucracies, turning them into rogue partisan arms of a president? So who ordered the CIA to concoct bogus charges of 'collusion' to sabotage Donald Trump's 2016 campaign, the 2016-2017 transition, and the first 22 months of Trump's first term? Who prompted a cabal of '51 former intelligence officials' to lie to the American people on the eve of the last debate of the 2020 election that the FBI-authenticated Hunter Biden laptop was instead the work of a 'Russian intelligence operation?' Who ordered the FBI to connive and partner with social-media conglomerates to censor accurate news deemed unhelpful to the 2020 Biden campaign? Who pulled off the greatest presidential coup in history by using surrogates in the shadows to run the cognitively debilitated Biden presidency, then by fiat canceled his reelection effort and finally anointed as his replacement the new nominee Kamala Harris, who had never won a single primary delegate? Who ordered FBI SWAT teams to invade the home of a former president because of a classification dispute over 102 files out of some 13,000 stored there? Who tried to remove an ex-president and leader of his party from at least 25 state ballots to deprive millions of Americans of the opportunity to vote for or against him? Who coordinated four local, state and federal prosecutors to destroy a former and future president by charging him with fantasy crimes that were never before, and will never again be, lodged against anyone else? Who appointed a federal prosecutor to go after the ex-president, who arranged for a high-ranking Justice Department official to step down to join a New York prosecutor's efforts to destroy an ex-president, and who met in the White House with a Georgia county prosecutor seeking to destroy an ex-president — all on the same day — a mere 72 hours after Trump announced his 2024 reelection bid? Who but the current Democrats ever impeached a president twice? Has any party ever tried an ex-president in the Senate when he was out of office and a mere private citizen? When have there ever been two near-miss assassination attempts on a major party presidential candidate during a single presidential campaign? Who destroyed the southern border and broke federal law to allow in, without criminal or health background audits, some 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens? Who created 600 'sanctuary jurisdictions' for the sole purpose of nullifying federal immigration law, in the eerie spirit of the renegade old Confederacy? Who allowed tens of thousands of rioters, arsonists and violent protesters over four months in 2020 to destroy over $2 billion in property, kill some 35 people, injure 1,500 police officers and torch a federal courthouse, a police precinct and a historic church — all with de facto legal impunity? How do the purported destroyers of democracy find themselves winning 60% to 70% approval on most of the key issues of our times, while the supposed saviors of democracy are on the losing side of popular opinion? How does a president 'destroy democracy' by his party winning the White House by both the popular and Electoral College vote, winning majorities in both the Senate and House by popular votes and enjoying a 6-3 edge in the Supreme Court through judges appointed by popularly elected presidents? So what is behind these absurd charges? Three catalysts: One, the new anguished elitist Democratic Party alienated the middle classes through its Jacobin agenda and therefore lost the Congress, the presidency and the Supreme Court, and now has no federal political power. Two, the Democratic Party is polling at record lows and yet remains hellbent on alienating the traditional sources of its power — minorities, youth and Independents. Three, Democrats cannot find any issues that the people support, nor any leaders to convince the people to embrace them. So it is no surprise that the panicked Democrats bark at the shadows — given that they know their revolutionary, neo-socialist agenda is destroying them. And yet, like all addicts, they choose destruction over abandoning their self-destructive fixations. Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness.
