Opposition stalwart Col (rtd) Kizza Besigye and his aide, Obed Lutale, yesterday refused to take plea to amended treason charges, prompting the High Court to adjourn plea-taking to allow the prosecution to regularise the indictment.
The dramatic proceedings unfolded before Justice Emmanuel Baguma at the Criminal Division of the High Court, shortly after the prosecution presented an amended indictment correcting defects earlier flagged by the defence.
When asked to plead to the charges of treason and misprision of treason, the accused declined, prompting the presiding judge to adjourn proceedings.
‘I am really horrified by the way things have been going,’ Dr Besigye told court.
Justice Baguma attempted to persuade him to take plea, assuring him of an opportunity to speak later if he complied.
‘I will give you a chance to say something later if you plead,’ the judge said.
However, Dr Besigye remained defiant, arguing that he could not meaningfully plead without the guidance of his lawyers.
‘We have spent here the whole day. How do you want me to plead when you have cut out the advice of my lawyers? I am not in a position to plead without the advice of my lawyers,’ he said.
He added: ‘This is persecution, and I am really tired of being charged with treason that never comes.’
Following his refusal, Justice Baguma formally entered a plea of not guilty on Dr Besigye’s behalf.
‘I have recorded a plea of not guilty,’ the judge ruled.
Lutale similarly declined to plead. When prompted by court, he simply responded, ‘No comment,’ and remained silent when subsequent charges were read.
Co-accused Capt Denish Oola Oyaa also declined to plead immediately, telling court: ‘I can’t plead now unless I consult with my lawyers.’
All three accused remained mute on the remaining counts, leading the court to enter not-guilty pleas for them.
Justice Baguma then appointed three court assessors John Musana, Richard Okello and Sarah Babirye to sit with the court during the trial. When asked whether he had any objections to the assessors, Dr Besigye responded curtly: ‘Do what you want.’
An assessor is a member of the public with no legal training and is provided for under criminal trials and always gives their unbinding opinion to court before it proceeds to deliver its final verdict.
‘I’m fed up’
Moments after court fixed the matter for hearing, Dr Besigye loudly protested from the dock.
‘I am fed up with persecution,’ he roared, drawing attention in the packed courtroom.
The judge directed the assessors to submit their personal details to the Registrar of the court to facilitate the trial process.
He then adjourned the matter to January 21, 2026, for scheduling.
Earlier, prosecution, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko, informed court that it was ready to proceed following the filing of an amended indictment.
‘The prosecution has filed an amended indictment to the effect that the correct name of (A3) third accused is Capt Dennis Oola Denish Oyaa, which is the name put on record by his lawyer,’ Mr Jatiko said.
He added that the amendment also corrected the division of the court, clarifying that the case is before the Criminal Division of the High Court and not the International Crimes Division.
‘The amended indictment is signed by Jatiko Thomas and dated December 29, 2025, and the Registrar of the court has signed and dated it December 30, 2025. We have been served with the same and we are ready to proceed,’ he told court.
However, defence lawyers raised sharp objections, accusing the prosecution of procedural impropriety and undermining the fairness of the trial.
Defence lawyer Fredrick Mpanga questioned how the amended indictment could be dated a day before the court order directing its amendment.
‘Pursuant to a court order made this morning, the indictment has been amended. However, despite the order having been made today, December 30, the amendment signed by Mr Jatiko is dated December 29, a day before the direction to amend,’ Mr Mpanga argued.
He said his clients were instructed to raise concerns that the sequence of events suggested coordination between court and prosecution.
‘The instructions from Dr Besigye are that if court directed the amendment to be made today after 11am, it cannot be explained that it is dated before the order,’ he said.
Mr Mpanga further objected to the notice of trial, arguing that it violated Section 28 of the Trial on Indictments Act, which requires at least 14 days’ notice before trial.
‘The notice indicates the accused would be tried today at 12:30pm, yet counsel was served at 12:50pm. That cannot be reasonable notice,’ he submitted.
Mr Erias Lukwago also echoed the objection, arguing that speed should not defeat fairness.
‘Even though the Constitution mandates a speedy trial, the speed must be reasonable. Serving notice after the time fixed for trial defeats the spirit and purpose of the law,’ Mr Lukwago said.
Counsel for Capt Oola, Simon Busagwa, associated himself with the objections, adding that while the indictment had been corrected, the summary of the case still bore incorrect particulars.
‘The Constitution requires that an accused understands the case against them. The particulars were corrected in the indictment but not in the summary,’ Mr Busagwa said, urging court to grant the State 14 days to fully regularise the documents.
In response, Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka dismissed the objections, insisting that the amendments were not fatal and had long been anticipated.
‘We had already put court on notice that we would amend the indictment regardless of whether there was a court order or not,’ Mr Birivumbuka said.
He argued that the accused had been before the High Court for months and were fully aware that the case was coming up for plea and trial.
‘The committal proceedings and repeated court appearances constitute sufficient notice. The defence has always known this case was for hearing,’ he submitted.
In a brief ruling, Justice Baguma said he would deliver a detailed decision later but directed that plea taking proceed in the interest of justice.
‘I have carefully listened to the submissions. Court allowed the amendment under Section 52 of the Trial on Indictments Act to clarify the particulars of A3,’ he ruled.
‘For the interest of justice and time, I now direct that the accused take plea, and they will be given an adjournment on when the hearing will start,’ Justice Baguma concluded.