Four-time presidential candidate Dr Kizza Besigye has petitioned the High Court to refer his treason case to the Constitutional Court for interpretation. He argues that a seven-day ultimatum granted by the trial judge to prepare his defence is inadequate and violates his constitutional right to a fair trial.
The urgent application was tabled on Monday before High Court judge Emmanuel Baguma. It followed a directive by the court for the prosecution to present its first witness on June 11, 2026, despite strenuous objections from the defence team. The lawyers insisted they had not been given sufficient time to analyse newly disclosed state evidence.
The development adds a new legal twist to the high-stakes trial of Dr Besigye, his political aide Hajj Obeid Lutale, and UPDF Warrant Officer II Denis Oola. The trio faces charges of plotting to overthrow the government through meetings allegedly held within Uganda and abroad between 2023 and 2024.
One of Besigye’s defence lawyers, Fredrick Mpanga, argued that the defence requires substantial time to review a mountain of evidence newly supplied by the state. This includes approximately 10 hours of sensitive audio and video recordings.
“We need to have gadgets to play flash disks and we have to listen to them. Some are visual and others are audio,” another senior defence lawyer and former Kampala Lord Mayor, Erias Lukwago, submitted to the court.
“Given the sensitivity of the case, we need our clients to have liberty so that we can discuss. We need adequate time and facilities to prepare the defence,” Mr Lukwago said.
The defence’s concerns mounted after the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) failed to fully comply with a specific court order requiring complete disclosure of all prosecution evidence by Friday at 5pm.
The court heard that while the prosecution successfully served the co-accused UPDF officer, (Denis Oola) on Friday, the legal teams representing Dr Besigye and Hajj Lutale were left out in the cold.
Mr Lukwago accused the state of routinely flouting judicial timelines, pointing out that the state has been dragging its feet for months while the accused persons languish in detention.
“Court has found that the prosecution is in violation of a court order, and A1 [Besigye] and A2 [Lutale] are seeking an order of reprimand,” Lukwago submitted. “One of the tenets of a fair trial is a speedy trial. The first-time disclosure was made was in December last year. Full disclosure would have been made by January 21, but the prosecution did not do so.”
Lukwago further noted that the prosecution had previously undertaken to complete the disclosure process by March 3, before failing to comply with yet another order issued just last week.
In response, Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka apologized for the delay, blaming it on an administrative breakdown where the designated official failed to serve Besigye and Lutale’s lawyers.
“We were able to serve A3 [Oola]. We do not want to go into details as to why we were unable to serve A1 and A2,” Birivumbuka said. “When we realized the mistake, we even called the defence and asked them to receive service the following day. We apologized and pledge to comply with court orders.”
While Justice Baguma agreed that the state had breached the disclosure timelines, he declined to slap further sanctions on the prosecution.
“I want to make it clear that the prosecution violated the order to disclose. I have warned the prosecution and made the stand that it was wrong, and I have closed that chapter,” the judge ruled.
Dissatisfied with the timeline, defence lawyer Ernest Kalibala immediately moved to seek a constitutional reference. He challenged the judge’s interpretation of Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution, which guarantees every accused person adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.
“There is a serious divergence of opinion about the interpretation the court has given,” Mr. Kalibala submitted. “We invite the court to enlist the interpretative function of the Constitutional Court so that we can understand how seven days and these circumstances can translate into a fair trial.”
The defence wants the Constitutional Court to determine whether seven days is sufficient preparation time for treason suspects in detention after full disclosure, and whether commencing a trial before concluding preliminary proceedings is constitutional.
Justice Baguma stated that he would deliver his ruling on the constitutional reference via the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) by 5pm today.
The state alleges that Dr. Besigye and his co-accused mobilized resources and held meetings across various locations to orchestrate an unlawful change of government. The opposition icon has consistently dismissed the charges as politically motivated.
Last week, the DPP abruptly withdrew an application that sought witness protection orders for six state witnesses. The state argued that the protection proceedings were dragging out the case and delaying the start of the substantive trial.