Overview: Justice Baguma finally agrees with the defence
Besigye’s lawyers maintained that entering a plea before resolving these issues would violate the accused’s right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. In his ruling, Justice Baguma agreed with the defence, saying that in the interest of justice, he would first hear the stay application.
Lawyers representing jailed opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye have asked the High court to halt his treason trial, which is currently before justice Emmanuel Baguma.
The matter came up on Thursday as Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale and Cpt Denis Oola, appeared for plea-taking. Assistant director of public prosecutions (DPP) Thomas Jatiko informed court that the state was ready to proceed.
However, defence lawyer Martha Karua told the court that new developments had emerged and invited her colleague, Ernest Kalibala, to explain. Kalibala said the defence had been instructed to file, and had indeed filed, constitutional petition no. 31 of 2025 before the Constitutional court.
The petition challenges the continued involvement of the trial judge, raises questions requiring constitutional interpretation, and seeks clarity on whether the criminal trial should proceed before those issues are resolved.
Kalibala said the declarations sought would directly affect the ongoing proceedings and, therefore, must be disposed of first. He added that the defence had also filed miscellaneous application no. 814 of 2025 before the High court seeking an order to stay the treason trial (criminal session case no. 335 of 2025) pending the conclusion of the constitutional petition.
Although the application had not been formally served, he argued that it should be heard before any further steps are taken and asked justice Baguma to fix an early hearing date. In response, Jatiko noted that the parties last appeared in court on November 6, nearly a month earlier.
He said the prosecution had come prepared for plea-taking and was unaware of the new application. He asked court to allow plea-taking to proceed first, after which the state would require a month to respond.
Kalibala conceded that formal service had not been effected but argued that the prosecution was informally aware of the filing. He said the supporting affidavit contains just 22 paragraphs and suggested that giving the prosecution time until Monday would be sufficient, calling the request for a month “excessive.”
Defence lawyer Erias Lukwago then told court that the prosecution’s claim of lack of notice was unfounded, arguing that the judiciary now uses a digital filing system. He said once an application is filed on the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), all parties automatically receive notifications, and that the prosecution was simply reluctant to check the system.
He added that the defence routinely checks for updates, even within seconds of filing, and insisted that issues touching on the impartiality of the court must be addressed before the trial can continue.
Lukwago argued that any application seeking the potential removal of a judge requires careful handling before proceedings move forward. Maj Simon Busagwa Nsubuga, representing Oola, said the petition filed by Besigye had significant implications for his client since they are jointly charged.
But chief state attorney Richard Birivumbuka dismissed Lukwago’s assertions, saying, “Lukwago is not a Gen Z and not an expert in information technology.” He argued that ECCMIS accounts must be linked to specific cases and that there was no evidence that the DPP’s office had been linked to the application.
Besigye’s lawyers maintained that entering a plea before resolving these issues would violate the accused’s right to a fair hearing, which is non-derogable. In his ruling, Justice Baguma agreed with the defence, saying that in the interest of justice, he would first hear the stay application.
He directed the applicants to serve the prosecution, which must file its response by December 11, 2025, with the defence making a rejoinder on December 18. The matter will return for hearing on December 22.
Besigye and Lutale accuse the trial judge of bias and incompetence, arguing that he should not preside over their case while a complaint seeking his removal is pending before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC).
Trouble began when justice Baguma denied bail to both Besigye and Lutale and opted to prioritise the trial instead. Speaking to URN after the proceedings, Besigye’s lawyer Samuel Muyizzi Mulindwa commended the judge’s calmness and “being liberal,” adding that the defence would not have petitioned the Constitutional court had he consistently conducted proceedings with similar judicial restraint.
Besigye, Lutale, and Oola are accused of plotting to overthrow the government. Prosecutors allege that the trio held meetings in Geneva, Athens, Nairobi, and Kampala to solicit funds, acquire weapons, and organise paramilitary operations.
The state further claims Besigye met a Kurdish intelligence agent identified as Andrew Wilson (AW) and received $5,000 (about Shs 17 million) to transport 36 Ugandans to Kisumu, Kenya, for military training, recruits who were later intercepted and deported.
The prosecution also alleges that Besigye sought surface-to-air missiles, ricin poison, counterfeit currency, and planned to use drone technology to assassinate President Yoweri Museveni, supported by audio and video recordings, social media messages, immigration documents, and phone logs said to link the accused to the alleged plot.
