Uthman Bakari
Kampala, Uganda.
The High Court in Kampala has dismissed an application by veteran opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye seeking to halt his treason trial and refer the case to the Constitutional Court, ruling that the request did not raise a substantial constitutional issue.
Delivering the decision on Thursday, Justice Stephen Mubiru Baguma said the application failed to meet the threshold under Article 137(5)(b) of Uganda’s 1995 Constitution, which allows for referral only when a prima facie question of constitutional interpretation arises.
“Counsel for the accused persons have not made out a prima facie question of law to warrant reference to the Constitutional Court,” Justice Baguma ruled.
“I accordingly decline to refer the proposed question and direct that the matter be fixed for scheduling and plea taking,” Baguma added.
The ruling clears the way for the trial to proceed against Besigye, a four-time presidential candidate and long-time critic of President Yoweri Museveni, and his co-accused — Hajji Obeid Lutale and Capt. Denis Oola — over alleged involvement in a 2021 plot to overthrow the government.
Besigye’s legal team, led by Martha Karua, Erias Lukwago, Ernest Kalibbala, and Fredrick Mpanga, had argued that continuing with the trial before Justice Baguma violated their clients’ right to a fair and impartial hearing under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution. The defense cited a pending complaint they had lodged against the judge before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) as grounds to question the court’s independence.
The proposed constitutional question asked whether a judicial officer facing a pending complaint by an accused person can still preside over that accused’s case without breaching constitutional guarantees of impartiality.
Justice Baguma, however, described the allegations of bias as “speculative” and unsupported by evidence. He held that such claims did not justify interrupting proceedings and reaffirmed that Article 28’s principles of a fair hearing remained intact.
“Article 137(5)(a) and (b) require that before a reference is made, the court must be satisfied that a prima facie case exists that interpretation of a constitutional provision is required. If this is not established, then no reference should be made,” he explained.
Citing precedents including Sheikh Abdul Karim Sentamu & Another v Uganda (1998) and Hon. Sam Kuteesa v Attorney General (2011), Justice Baguma said none of the defense’s cited authorities—among them Prof. Isaac Newton Ojok v Uganda and Tumaini v Republic (1972)—met the criteria for constitutional interpretation.
“However much a party may request, he cannot have referred a matter that does not involve interpretation of the Constitution. Nor can a party give the court jurisdiction which it does not have by law,” he said, adding that the fears of an unfair trial were “imagined.”
The courtroom briefly descended into chaos following the ruling, with Lutale’s daughter reportedly arrested after protesting the decision.
Besigye, 69, has faced numerous politically charged prosecutions over the years and continues to accuse the judiciary of bias and state interference. Thursday’s ruling marks the latest twist in his legal battles since the disputed 2021 presidential election, reflecting the enduring tension between Uganda’s opposition and the government.
The case will now proceed to scheduling and plea taking, with the next hearing date yet to be announced.