The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment affirming that civil courts lack the authority to hear appeals arising from military court decisions. This landmark ruling was issued by a panel of five Justices, led by Professor Lillian Tibatemwa, in the case of Lt. Ambrose Ogwang, a Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officer convicted of murder by a Court Martial and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The decision follows an appeal by Ogwang, who sought to overturn his conviction and sentence. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that neither it nor the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to handle cases from military courts, as the Uganda People’s Defence Forces Act, 2005, does not provide for such appeals.
Justice Mike Chibita, Catherine Bamugemereire, Christopher Izama Madrama, and Stephen Musota joined Tibatemwa in delivering the ruling. They noted that appeals within the military justice system are confined to the General Court Martial and the Court Martial Appeal Court, as outlined in the UPDF Act.
Case Background
Lt. Ogwang was charged with murder following an incident in 2010 when he reportedly killed Inspector George William Koire during a police pursuit in Mbale City. Initially sentenced to death by the UPDF 3rd Divisional Court Martial, his penalty was later commuted to life imprisonment by the General Court Martial. The Court Martial Appeal Court upheld this decision.
Ogwang attempted to challenge his conviction in the Court of Appeal, which dismissed his appeal. He then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his rights to a fair hearing and impartiality were violated during the appellate process. His legal team cited irregularities in the trial and questioned the admissibility of evidence presented against him.
The Supreme Court’s Ruling
Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo raised a preliminary objection, asserting that the appeal was invalid due to the lack of statutory provision for appeals from the Court Martial Appeal Court to civil courts. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the right to appeal is a statutory creation.
The Justices noted that while Regulation 20(2) of the Court Martial Appeal Court Regulations attempted to permit appeals to the Court of Appeal, it contradicted the UPDF Act and was therefore null and void. The court stressed that subordinate legislation cannot override the primary statute.
“The UPDF Act is clear in its hierarchy and appellate framework, and no provision exists for civil courts to intervene in military judicial processes. Any attempt to confer such jurisdiction through ministerial regulation is ultra vires and invalid,” the court ruled.
The Justices added that if lawmakers intended for civil courts to play a role in military appeals, explicit provisions would have been included in the UPDF Act.
Implications of the Judgment
The ruling has clarified the separation between military and civilian judicial systems in Uganda. The court reiterated that appeals are strictly governed by statute, and military justice operates independently of civil judicial oversight.
While the Supreme Court acknowledged its supervisory role over death sentences under the Law Revision (Penalties in Criminal Matters) Act, 2019, it noted that this authority does not extend to other sentences handed down by military courts.
Conclusion
Lt. Ogwang’s appeal was dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction, reaffirming his life sentence for murder. The Supreme Court expressed hope that the ruling would provide clarity on the boundaries of appellate jurisdiction between military and civil courts.
The decision reinforces the autonomy of military judicial processes while ensuring that civil courts do not overstep their statutory mandates.
