State to assign lawyers to Besigye, High court rules

The High court has ruled that the treason trial of veteran opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused will proceed regardless of whether they are represented by lawyers of their choice, directing that counsel be assigned to them under the State Brief scheme if necessary.

Justice Emmanuel Baguma made the ruling after Besigye, who appeared alongside Hajj Obeid Lutale and Capt Denis Oola, objected to the hearing proceeding in the absence of their preferred lawyers.

Besigye told the court he had been brought from Luzira Prison against his will and had declined to participate in the proceedings because he had been denied access to his lawyers of choice.

The trio is charged with treason over allegations that they plotted to overthrow the Ugandan government by soliciting funding, acquiring weapons and organising paramilitary activities through meetings allegedly held in Kampala, Nairobi, Geneva and Athens.

At the start of the proceedings, assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko informed the court that the prosecution was ready to proceed despite the absence of the defence team, noting that prosecution witnesses were already in court.

Besigye argued that proceeding without his preferred lawyers, Erias Lukwago and Martha Karua, violated his constitutional right to a fair hearing.

He told the court that Lukwago had been tortured and images of his ordeal circulated on social media, while Karua had been deported to Kenya, leaving the accused without legal representation of their choice.

When Justice Baguma asked whether anyone had expressly denied them that right, Besigye replied that the matter was already the subject of a pending application before the High court.

He further stated that although prison authorities had previously been directed to grant his lawyers access to Luzira Prison, they had never been allowed to jointly review the prosecution evidence with him.

Besigye also informed the court that certified copies of proceedings in both the criminal case and a related application concerning legal representation had not been supplied despite earlier requests.

He attempted to raise concerns over recent remarks by President Yoweri Museveni, whom he said had publicly stated that Besigye was delaying his own justice by rejecting what the President described as “community justice” or indigenous justice mechanisms.

Justice Baguma declined to entertain submissions on the President’s remarks, ruling that they were not relevant to the proceedings before the court. Besigye also alleged that a letter he wrote from Luzira Prison on Friday outlining his concerns had not reached the court because it had been withheld by prison authorities.

Assistant Superintendent of Prisons Emmanuel Hiire told the court he was unsure whether the letter had been cleared for delivery.

Capt Oola also objected to the hearing proceeding, saying he had only been informed at about 9:00 am on Monday that the trial had been scheduled, leaving him with no opportunity to consult his lawyers.

He further complained that despite an earlier court order, he had never received a copy of a previous ruling and lacked adequate facilities in prison to study the prosecution’s disclosure before trial.

Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka opposed the objections, arguing that the accused had effectively waived their right to legal representation after informing the court that they had withdrawn instructions from their lawyers.

He urged the court to appoint counsel under the State Brief scheme, warning that further delays could prejudice the prosecution as witnesses might become unavailable or unwilling to testify.

Birivumbuka also argued that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was not a party to the separate application concerning legal representation and maintained that the High court remained constitutionally independent.

In his ruling, Justice Baguma acknowledged that the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to a fair hearing and legal representation. However, he held that the pending application concerning legal representation could not halt the treason trial because it had not been assigned to his court.

The judge agreed that although disclosure had previously been conducted in the presence of defence lawyers, the accused themselves had not been furnished with copies of the prosecution evidence.

He directed the prosecution to immediately provide all disclosure materials to the accused before they were returned to prison.

Justice Baguma also ordered the registrar of the Criminal Division to provide certified copies of the court proceedings by Tuesday, July 14, and directed prison authorities to comply with earlier court orders granting the accused adequate facilities to prepare their defence.

He further ordered that Capt Oola be provided with a copy of the earlier ruling that had not been availed to him. Justice Baguma directed the registrar to furnish the accused with a list of advocates under the State Brief scheme by Tuesday to enable them to select counsel.

He further ruled that if the accused declined to choose lawyers from the State Brief list, the registrar would appoint counsel on their behalf to ensure that the trial proceeds. The case was adjourned to Wednesday, July 15, 2026, at 11:00 am.

The post State to assign lawyers to Besigye, High court rules appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.