Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Frances Abodo has firmly rejected proposals by Members of Parliament to extend her office’s jurisdiction to take over cases of civilians charged before the Court Martial.
Speaking before the Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committee during the presentation of the 2025/26 Budget Framework Paper, Abodo underscored the constitutional boundaries of her mandate as outlined in Article 120 of the Constitution.
“I can’t institute or take over cases under the Court Martial. I want to stay in my lane,” Abodo stated. She elaborated that her office can only direct investigations and institute proceedings in courts of competent jurisdiction, excluding the military court. She cited subjudice rules as another reason to avoid delving into cases currently under the Supreme Court’s consideration.
The issue arose when Bugiri Municipality MP Asuman Basalirwa urged Abodo to consider taking over civilian trials in the Court Martial. Basalirwa argued that Article 120 grants the DPP powers to take over and discontinue criminal proceedings initiated by other authorities, even in the military court system.
“We believe that while the Constitution bars the DPP from instituting cases in the Court Martial, it permits the takeover and discontinuation of proceedings, particularly involving civilians,” Basalirwa explained. He urged Abodo to explore this interpretation to ensure fairness and accountability in the judicial process.
Abodo reiterated that her office takes a rigorous approach to case management, guided by evidence and internal protocols. She emphasized that decisions to charge suspects are carefully reviewed to prevent injustices, with multiple layers of opinions from senior state attorneys.
“We do not withdraw cases without thorough investigation and sufficient evidence. Charging someone has significant consequences for the individual, their family, and the community. It’s a serious decision that we don’t take lightly,” she stated.
To strengthen decision-making, the DPP’s office has introduced guidelines for prosecutors, ensuring that files meet the required evidentiary thresholds before being sanctioned. Abodo acknowledged the need for continuous improvement, including mentorship programs for prosecutors, to enhance accountability and performance.
Citing Article 120, Abodo clarified that the Constitution explicitly excludes her office from instituting cases in the Court Martial. She added, “I cannot comment further on these cases, as they are pending before the Supreme Court. I do not want to be quoted or misquoted in a manner that could violate the subjudice rule.”
The ongoing public debate has highlighted ongoing concerns over the trial of civilians in military courts. The matter remains contentious, with MPs advocating for broader oversight to address perceived gaps in the Court Martial’s handling of civilian cases.
Comments are closed.