KAMPALA, Uganda | Dr Dennis Daniel Ssemugenyi, a public interest lawyer and human rights defender, has petitioned the Constitutional Court to declare the recently passed UPDF (Amendment) Act, 2025 unconstitutional, arguing that it threatens democratic representation and civilian justice.

Ssemugenyi sued the Attorney General as the legal representative of the Government of Uganda, and the Parliament, which enacted the act, has been attached as respondents.

According to Dr Ssemugenyi’s petition, the act violates Articles 28(1), 44(c), 119, 120, and 126 of the Constitution by granting military courts jurisdiction over civilians, a move previously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Uganda.

He contends that the trial of civilians disobeys articles 28(1), which ensures a fair trial before an impartial and independent civilian court; 44, which declares the right to a fair trial inalienable; and the judicial independence of the constitution.

“This is not a protest; it is a patriotic duty,” Dr Ssemugenyi stated. “A quiet but firm stand for the Constitution, for justice, and for the Ugandan spirit of fairness.”

Dr Ssemugenyi wants court to declare the UPDF Amendment Act, 2025, unconstitutional and void and recognise that the current constituency framework does not reflect the general will of the people

He added that the act aims to overturn earlier Supreme Court decisions that compromise the separation of powers guaranteed by Articles 28, 16, and 128 of the Constitution.

”It was passed in a context where constituency representation in parliament is deeply imbalanced, and a gerrymandered electoral system has produced a two-thirds ruling party supermajority, despite significant population disparities. I believe that such a law, passed under these conditions, cannot reflect the sovereign will of the Ugandan people.” Dr Ssemugenyi added

Additionally, Ssemugenyi argues that the disparities create an artificial supermajority that makes it easier for contested legislation to pass and violate the equal suffrage principle.

”Even the presidential assent, a law that contradicts the constitution, remains subject to judicial review. Constitutional supremacy cannot be set aside by political convenience,” he revealed

He added that ”the outcome of his petition will have far-reaching implications for Uganda’s democracy, human rights, and rule of law. As the court deliberates on this matter, it is essential to consider the principles of constitutional supremacy, judicial independence, and the protection of human rights.”