Uganda plans law to allow military prosecution of civilians
KAMPALA (Reuters) - The Ugandan government intends to introduce a law to allow military tribunals to try civilians for certain offences even after the practice was banned by the Supreme Court.
Human rights activists and opposition politicians have long accused President Yoweri Museveni's government of using military courts to prosecute opposition leaders and supporters on politically motivated charges. The government denies the accusations.
In January Uganda's Supreme Court delivered a ruling that banned military prosecutions of civilians, which forced the government to transfer the trial of opposition politician and former presidential candidate Kizza Besigye to civilian courts.
If successfully enacted, the new law could allow the government to take Besigye back to a military court martial.
The law has been drafted and is awaiting cabinet approval before it is introduced in parliament, Nobert Mao, the minister for justice and constitutional affairs, told parliament late on Thursday.
The law will define "exceptional circumstances under which a civilian may be subject to military law", he said.
Besigye, a veteran political rival of Museveni, has been in detention for nearly five months on what his lawyers say are politically motivated charges.
He was detained in neighbouring Kenya in November and subsequently transferred to Uganda, where he was charged in a military court-martial with illegal possession of firearms among other offences.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
39 minutes ago
- Yahoo
On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment
Over the past three months, the Trump administration has filed lawsuits against Los Angeles, Illinois, Colorado, New York state, New York City, and other places for the express purpose of forcing them to abolish their "sanctuary city" policies and start aiding the feds in rounding up undocumented immigrants and enforcing federal immigration laws. But unless the U.S. Supreme Court rapidly overturns several of its own precedents, including a recent one from 2018, all of these cases will be constitutional losers for President Donald Trump. Why? Here is how the late conservative legal hero and long-serving Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia once spelled it out. "The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems," Scalia wrote for the Court's majority in Printz v. United States (1997), "nor command the States' officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." At issue in Printz was the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which, among other things, required state and local police to help the feds enforce federal gun control laws. However, Scalia held, such "federal commandeering of state governments" violated the constitutional principles of federalism secured by the 10th Amendment. Scalia's ruling in Printz was recently reaffirmed and expanded by the Supreme Court in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), which struck down a federal law that prohibited states from legalizing sports gambling. At the time it was decided, Printz was widely criticized by liberals, who objected to the idea of state and local officials stymying a federal gun control scheme. Now, the same anticommandeering doctrine that led to a "conservative" result in Printz is standing in the way of Trump's immigration crackdown. According to Trump's Justice Department, sanctuary city policies, such as when local police are generally forbidden from notifying the feds about a noncitizen's custody status or release date from custody, "reflect an intentional effort to obstruct federal law enforcement." But federal agents still retain their own independent authority to enforce federal immigration law inside of sanctuary states and cities, just as federal authorities retain the independent authority to enforce other federal laws in states and cities. The key point under Printz is that it is unconstitutional for the feds to compel local officials to lend them a helping hand in carrying out the enforcement of federal law. Because these sanctuary cases all feature the federal government in direct and open conflict with a state or city, one or more of them will probably end up before the Supreme Court in due time. Perhaps it will be United States v. Illinois. Last week, Judge Lindsay Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division ruled that the Prairie State's various sanctuary laws were safeguarded from the Trump administration's lawsuit by the anticommandeering principle embraced in Printz, Murphy, and related precedents. "The Sanctuary Policies reflect [Illinois'] decision to not participate in enforcing civil immigration law—a decision protected by the Tenth Amendment and not preempted by" the Immigration and Nationality Act, the judge wrote. I expect a majority of the Supreme Court to adopt the same position if or when the opportunity arises. If it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal gun control, it is unconstitutional for the feds to mandate local cooperation in enforcing federal immigration control. The national policies under dispute may be different, but the underlying constitutional issue is the same. As long as Printz remains good law, Trump's efforts to override the actions of sanctuary states and cities will be thwarted by Scalia's judgment. The post On Sanctuary Cities, It's Trump vs. the 10th Amendment appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Russia wants to link cut in NATO troops to talks about Ukraine, says Poland
WARSAW (Reuters) -Russia wants to include the topic of a reduction of NATO troops presence in any conversations about the future of Ukraine, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk told reporters on Wednesday. "We are hearing for the past several days that the Russians would very much like to include talks about reducing NATO's presence, for example in Poland, in talks about the future of Ukraine," he said. "That is why it is so important that we build such a strong and united group of states, both in relation to Russia, but also in relation to other allies, like the United States."
Los Angeles Times
an hour ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump administration's lawsuit against all of Maryland's federal judges meets skepticism in court
BALTIMORE — A judge on Wednesday questioned why it was necessary for the Trump administration to sue Maryland's entire federal bench over an order that paused the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removals. U.S. District Judge Thomas Cullen didn't issue a ruling following a hearing in federal court in Baltimore, but he expressed skepticism about the administration's extraordinary legal maneuver, which attorneys for the Maryland judges called completely unprecedented. Cullen serves in the Western District of Virginia, but he was tapped to oversee the Baltimore case because all of Maryland's 15 federal judges are named as defendants, a highly unusual circumstance that reflects the Republican administration's aggressive response to courts that slow or stop its policies. At issue in the lawsuit is an order signed by Chief Maryland District Judge George L. Russell III that prevents the administration from immediately deporting any immigrants seeking review of their detention in a Maryland federal court. The order blocks their removal until 4 p.m. on the second business day after their habeas corpus petition is filed. The Justice Department, which filed the lawsuit in June, says the automatic pause impedes President Trump's authority to enforce immigration laws. But attorneys for the Maryland judges argue that the suit was intended to limit the power of the judiciary to review certain immigration proceedings while the administration pursues a mass deportation agenda. 'The executive branch seeks to bring suit in the name of the United States against a co-equal branch of government,' said Paul Clement, a prominent conservative lawyer who served as Republican President George W. Bush's solicitor general. 'There really is no precursor for this suit.' Clement listed several other avenues the administration could have taken to challenge the order, such as filing an appeal in an individual habeas case. Cullen also asked the government's lawyers whether they had considered that alternative, which he said could have been more expeditious than suing all the judges. He also questioned what would happen if the administration accelerated its current approach and sued a federal appellate bench, or even the Supreme Court. 'I think you probably picked up on the fact that I have some skepticism,' Cullen told Justice Department attorney Elizabeth Themins Hedges when she stood to present the Trump administration's case. Hedges denied that the case would 'open the floodgates' to similar lawsuits. She said the government is simply seeking relief from a legal roadblock preventing effective immigration enforcement. 'The United States is a plaintiff here because the United States is being harmed,' she said. Cullen, who was nominated to the federal bench by Trump in 2019, said he would issue a ruling by Labor Day on whether to dismiss the lawsuit. If allowed to proceed, he could also grant the government's request for a preliminary injunction that would block the Maryland federal bench from following the conditions of the chief judge's order. The automatic pause in deportation proceedings sought to maintain existing conditions and the potential jurisdiction of the court, ensure immigrant petitioners are able to participate in court proceedings and access attorneys and give the government 'fulsome opportunity to brief and present arguments in its defense,' according to the order. Russell also said the court had received an influx of habeas petitions after hours that 'resulted in hurried and frustrating hearings in that obtaining clear and concrete information about the location and status of the petitioners is elusive.' Habeas petitions allow people to challenge their detention by the government. The administration accused Maryland judges of prioritizing a regular schedule, saying in court documents that 'a sense of frustration and a desire for greater convenience do not give Defendants license to flout the law.' Among the judges named in the lawsuit is Paula Xinis, who found the administration illegally deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March — a case that quickly became a flashpoint in Trump's immigration crackdown. Abrego Garcia was held in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, where he claims to have been beaten and tortured. The administration later brought Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. and charged him with human smuggling in Tennessee. His attorneys characterized the charge as an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. Xinis recently prohibited the administration from taking Abrego Garcia into immediate immigration custody if he's released from jail pending trial. Skene writes for the Associated Press.
