Camouflaged injustice? Unmasking the trial of civilians in military courts and the erosion of civil liberties
by admin on | 2025-12-04 08:24:34
Share: Facebook | Twitter | Whatsapp | Linkedin Visits: 22
Abstract
Military tribunals are specialized courts established within the armed forces to enforce discipline, adjudicate offences committed by military personnel, and maintain internal order. Rooted in the logic of hierarchy and command efficiency, these courts were never designed to mirror the civilian judicial system. Their primary role is to address breaches of military codes, such as desertion, insubordination, or conduct prejudicial to military order. Their proceedings tend to be swift, regimented, and adapted to the operational demands of armed forces. However, the growing practice of extending the jurisdiction of military tribunals to civilians, particularly in cases deemed to threaten state security, raises serious questions about fairness, transparency, and the integrity of the justice system. Drawing from fair trial principles such as judicial independence, presumption of innocence, the right to defence, and the right of appeal, the paper explores how military tribunals, by design and practice, often fail to uphold minimum guarantees of due process. It critically analyses regional and international legal frameworks, including the ACHPR, the ICCPR, and interpretative decisions by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Through a comparative analysis of Uganda’s legal system, the paper reveals a concerning pattern of executive overreach, opaque procedures, and the silencing of dissent through militarized adjudication. The study concludes by offering concrete legal and policy reforms to restrict military jurisdiction to its proper scope, restore civilian judicial supremacy, and align national laws with international human rights obligations.
1.0 Introduction
Military courts were historically established as specialized forums to enforce discipline within the ranks of the armed forces. Their mandate was, and ostensibly remains, disciplinary: to adjudicate offences committed by military personnel under military law, with an emphasis on swift justice to maintain order, obedience, and operational efficiency.1 Justice Hugo Black once acknowledged this logic in United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles (1955), noting that military officers, by virtue of their training and experience, may be best suited to adjudicate infractions that are uniquely military in nature.2 But what happens when this courtroom of soldiers turns its gaze to civilians?
