With the 2026 general elections on the horizon, tensions in Uganda are flaring as President Yoweri Museveni’s government intensifies its crackdown on political dissent. At the center of the storm, as The Guardian reports, is the continued prosecution of civilians in military courts, a practice Uganda’s own Supreme Court declared unconstitutional in 2021. Despite the ruling, Museveni’s administration presses on, raising fresh alarms about the erosion of judicial independence, civil liberties, and the future of democracy in the country.
A Defiant Government, A Dismantled Legal Barrier
The key allegation at the heart of the opposition’s outrage is both clear and grave: President Museveni is deliberately ignoring the judiciary’s authority by using military courts to silence his critics. Though Uganda’s Supreme Court invalidated the military trial of civilians four years ago, the executive branch continues to employ this tool against political opponents, journalists, and activists, a move critics argue amounts to open defiance of constitutional order.
This intensifying pattern of repression sets an ominous stage for Uganda’s 2026 elections, with growing fears that the ballot may be overshadowed by state-led intimidation and systemic suppression of dissent.
A History of Courts as Political Weapons
Uganda’s military court system was originally designed to handle crimes within the armed forces. However, under Museveni—who has ruled since 1986—it has often been wielded against civilian dissenters, especially during periods of political turbulence. Human rights groups have long documented this misuse, but the 2021 Supreme Court ruling was expected to mark a turning point. Instead, it has become another dead letter.
The continued trials not only ignore the judicial branch’s directive but also underscore the persistent centralization of power around Museveni and the ruling National Resistance Movement (NRM), which has repeatedly resorted to coercive tactics to retain political dominance.
Opposition Leaders in the Crosshairs
Among those most affected are Uganda’s prominent opposition figures.
Dr. Kizza Besigye, a former physician turned fierce Museveni critic, has spent decades in and out of jail, frequently facing charges in military tribunals despite his status as a civilian. His activism has earned him both a loyal following and relentless harassment by the state.
Robert Kyagulanyi, a.k.a. Bobi Wine, the pop star-turned-politician and leader of the National Unity Platform (NUP), has become the face of youthful opposition in Uganda. He, too, has been arrested, assaulted, and charged by military courts, symbolizing the generational struggle for democratic change.
Numerous other activists, journalists, and NUP supporters have faced similar fates, often subjected to opaque proceedings, denied legal counsel, and held for prolonged periods without trial.
The Breakdown of Legal Protections
Legal analysts and rights groups are sounding the alarm on what they call a systematic erosion of due process in Uganda. Military tribunals are notorious for their lack of transparency, closed hearings, and procedural irregularities. Defendants are frequently denied access to lawyers or the evidence against them—hallmarks of an unfair trial.
“The continued use of military courts against civilians is a blatant violation of judicial independence,” said a legal expert quoted by The Guardian. “It’s a backdoor form of political control.”
Domestic and International Pushback
Uganda’s civil society organizations have condemned the crackdown, organizing protests, filing legal challenges, and documenting abuses. However, many face their own risks of persecution.
International watchdogs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have joined the chorus of condemnation. Several foreign governments have expressed concern, with some considering targeted sanctions or increased diplomatic pressure.
Still, Uganda’s strategic position in the region—and Museveni’s longstanding role as a Western security ally—has often tempered international responses.
2026 Elections: A Democratic Façade?
With opposition parties under siege and civic space shrinking, critics argue that the 2026 elections may be more of a performance than a genuine democratic contest. The persistent harassment of political challengers undermines public confidence in the process and raises doubts about whether free and fair elections are even possible under current conditions.
The use of legal instruments as political bludgeons, particularly military courts, tips the scales against opposition groups and silences alternative voices at a time when dialogue and democratic competition are most needed.
A Continental Framework: The African Charter’s Role
Uganda’s crackdown also appears to contravene multiple provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, to which it is a state party.
-
Article 7 guarantees the right to a fair trial—a right clearly jeopardized by the use of military courts for civilians.
-
Article 9 upholds freedom of expression, which has been stifled through intimidation of journalists and activists.
-
Articles 10 and 11 protect freedom of association and assembly—both of which have come under strain through arbitrary arrests, detentions, and bans on opposition gatherings.
As a signatory, Uganda is obligated to honor these rights and submit to the jurisdiction of regional human rights mechanisms. Its current trajectory places it in potential violation of these international commitments.
