President Yoweri Museveni’s appointment of Brigadier General Richard Tukacungurwa as Chairperson of the General Court Martial has drawn mixed reactions from legal professionals and stakeholders amid ongoing debates over the role of military courts in the country.
The appointment comes at a time when the Court Martial is restructuring its leadership, following the Supreme Court’s January 2025 judgement that civilians cannot be tried in military courts.
Brig Gen Tukacungurwa replaces Brigadier Freeman Robert Mugabe and assumes leadership at a critical moment as the military justice system adjusts to constitutional changes.
Lawyer Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa, who was one of the lawyers who represented Dr Kizza Besigye his co accused Obeid Lutale on treason charges while they were in the court martial , and one who was present when their fellow lawyer colleague Eron Kiiza was jailed 9 months for contempt of court in a heated exchange that led to the clashing with Tukacungurwa in court, has described the appointment as both surprising , shocking and a nightmare for both the public and the lawyers seeking justice for their clients. Muyizzi said the decision was puzzling given concerns about Tukacungurwa’s judicial temperament and conduct during his tenure as Judge Advocate.
He questioned whether the Judicial Service Commission had fully considered his record before endorsing the appointment. According to Muyizzi, had the Judicial Service Commission considered the fact that Tukacungurwa lacks the judicial temper, they wouldn’t have recommended his appointment.
Muyizzi has noted that the court is not about structures and that the appointment of Tukacungurwa will be challenged because it’s a political decision coming back in a political period.
The victim of Tukacungurwa’s wrath Lawyer Eron Kiiza who was convicted and sentenced to nine months in jail after clashing with the then Judge Advocate who is now the Chairperson and has since been released on bail has said the appointment of Tukacungurwa is a Nightmare for freedom and justice. “He is the personification of impunity and decay of democracy. It represents the erosion and burial of common sense, fairness and justice in UPDF in particular and Uganda broadly”, said Kiiza .
Constitutional law expert Dr. Kabumba Busingye suggested that the appointment may indicate a prioritization of military law over constitutional protections. He argued that the decision appears to disregard the guidance embedded in the Supreme Court’s Kabaziguruka ruling, which had sought to rein in the powers of military courts and safeguard human rights.
“In my view, the appointment signals the determination of the President to constitute a General Court Martial which considers military law to be superior to even the Constitution, particularly those parts dealing with human rights and liberties of the individual. In effect, the spirit of the appointment is an affront to the guidance embedded within the Supreme Court decision in the Kabaziguruka case, and does not bode well for any meaningful reforms in the law and practice of the GCM”, said Dr Kabumba.
Lawyer Caleb Alaka, who once represented Jailed Dr Kizza Besigye and was once fined 1000 shillings for contempt of court, has offered a different perspective, noting that the new leadership could enhance the Court’s capacity to try soldiers fairly. However, he cautioned against extending the Court’s jurisdiction to civilians, warning that any attempt to do so could prompt renewed legal challenges. “With the Court Martial’s new structure, it is now fit to try soldiers and give them justice, but civilians should not be subjected to this court,” Alaka said.
He said the Court Martial shouldn’t try civilians, or else they will revisit this argument in the Court Martial in the Supreme Court.
Lawyer Samuel Wanda expressed skepticism about Tukacungurwa’s ability to deliver impartial justice, citing his previous conduct as Judge Advocate.
Wanda expressed hope that the Court would confine itself to disciplinary offences rather than regular criminal cases, which should continue to be tried in ordinary courts.
A state Attorney who preferred anonymity added a more cautionary note. “I feel Pity for Ugandans. Everyone has to be careful not to be produced in that court. Its jurisdiction has been comprehensively widened,” the official said.
The Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling had declared key sections of the UPDF Act unconstitutional for permitting civilians to be tried in military courts. Following the ruling, Parliament amended the Act, allowing only narrow exceptions where civilians are jointly charged with soldiers, under specific circumstances.
The Court Martial is yet to resume operation under this amended legal framework, and the new leadership is expected to navigate the balance between military discipline and constitutional safeguards in line with the Supreme Court decision.
***URN***