Besigye and Kamulegeya in the dock
Rtd Col Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutaale Kamulegeya have been further remanded Luzira prison until January 7, 2025, by the General Court Martial.
The two were abducted from Kenya by Ugandan army personnel and face charges of unlawful possession of ammunition and firearms. Before their remand, their legal team, led by Erias Lukwago and Eron Kiiza raised several concerns, including the arrest of one of their colleagues, Rtd Maj Ronald Iduli, the lack of sufficient seating for the lawyers, and the denial of a practising certificate to Martha Karua, who was set to be the lead counsel.
Lukwago informed the court that the defense team was not fully constituted due to these issues and, as a result, they were unable to proceed. He also introduced three visiting jurists; Margaret Nangacovie from Angola, Gicheru Kimei from Kenya, and Martha Karua, also from Kenya.
Lukwago noted that many of Besigye's lawyers were forced to stand due to the lack of seating arrangements. He also expressed concern that the windows of the court hall were not opened, which he argued hindered a comfortable working environment. Additionally, Lukwago noted that Karua, who had been appointed as the lead counsel, was denied a practising certificate by the Uganda Law Council.
Lukwago informed the court that the defense team was not fully constituted due to these issues and, as a result, they were unable to proceed. He also introduced three visiting jurists; Margaret Nangacovie from Angola, Gicheru Kimei from Kenya, and Martha Karua, also from Kenya.
Lukwago noted that many of Besigye's lawyers were forced to stand due to the lack of seating arrangements. He also expressed concern that the windows of the court hall were not opened, which he argued hindered a comfortable working environment. Additionally, Lukwago noted that Karua, who had been appointed as the lead counsel, was denied a practising certificate by the Uganda Law Council.
He stated that they had filed objections to the decision, questioning whether certificates were only granted to foreign lawyers in civil matters and arguing that Karua's East African passport should facilitate her practice. Judge advocate, Brigadier Richard Tukacungurwa, interrupted Lukwago's submission, asserting that the court had already addressed the issue of Karua’s certificate and that she would not be allowed to serve as the lead counsel. He added that Lukwago should instead lead the defense team.
Kiiza also raised the issue of Maj Iduli's abduction this morning, emphasizing that the team's inability to proceed was exacerbated by the absence of one of their key members. He expressed concerns that the legal team and their clients were being subjected to intimidation and threats, especially since the defense lawyers were left standing.
During the session, the defense lawyers expressed frustration with the treatment they received at the court. Nalukoola Luyimbazi, another member of the defense team, spoke about the challenging conditions they faced and criticized the treatment of both the lawyers and their clients. Luyimbazi suggested that the court should emulate other courts in the region to improve the conditions.
In response, Brig Robert Freeman Mugabe explained that the seating arrangements were based on the number of lawyers who had submitted their instructions. Kiiza, however, insisted that the accused had the right to choose their legal representation and that this right should not be compromised. As the session continued, the judge advocate emphasized that lawyers must file their instructions with the registrar and abide by the court’s rules.
He also warned that failure to follow protocol could result in contempt of court. Lukwago raised concerns about the independence of the court and sought clarification from the Court Martial chairperson on who was in charge. Mugabe suggested that the legal team could exert pressure on the authorities to produce Maj Iduli or use other means to resolve the issue.
Army prosecutor Lt Col Raphael Mugisha questioned Kiiza's conduct during a previous session, implying that Kiiza had been unprofessional by engaging in physical exercises outside the courtroom before the hearing. Kiiza, however, responded by indicating that he would write to the chief of defense forces (CDF) to demand the names of those responsible for the abduction of Besigye.
Roland Tugume, a lawyer, applied to join as amicus curiae (friend of the court), citing concerns over the conduct of the judge advocate and the treatment of the accused. However, Besigye’s lawyers expressed their displeasure with the idea of accepting a ruling on this application, as they did not have instructions to receive it.
At the end of the session, the defense lawyers briefed journalists outside the courtroom, but their address was disrupted by a vehicle with a siren, making it difficult for the media to hear their statements. On Monday, Karua was denied a certificate by the Uganda Law Council, citing several reasons, including her previous confrontations with the chief justice and her involvement in the case as a potential witness.
The Law Council also questioned whether she was bringing any special legal skills to the country. Besigye and three other human rights defenders, including lawyers Andrew Karamagi, Anthony Odur, and Godwin Toko, have since challenged the trial in the East African Court of Justice, seeking compensation of $100,000 (over Shs 360 million) for what they describe as an illegal arrest from Kenya and subsequent trial.
This is not the first time Besigye has appeared before the Court Martial. In 2006, he was charged with treason, rape, and concealment of treason, though the charges were later dismissed. Besigye has repeatedly accused the state of political persecution rather than legitimate prosecution, as he has faced numerous charges in various courts without any conviction. By URN / The Observer
Kiiza also raised the issue of Maj Iduli's abduction this morning, emphasizing that the team's inability to proceed was exacerbated by the absence of one of their key members. He expressed concerns that the legal team and their clients were being subjected to intimidation and threats, especially since the defense lawyers were left standing.
During the session, the defense lawyers expressed frustration with the treatment they received at the court. Nalukoola Luyimbazi, another member of the defense team, spoke about the challenging conditions they faced and criticized the treatment of both the lawyers and their clients. Luyimbazi suggested that the court should emulate other courts in the region to improve the conditions.
In response, Brig Robert Freeman Mugabe explained that the seating arrangements were based on the number of lawyers who had submitted their instructions. Kiiza, however, insisted that the accused had the right to choose their legal representation and that this right should not be compromised. As the session continued, the judge advocate emphasized that lawyers must file their instructions with the registrar and abide by the court’s rules.
He also warned that failure to follow protocol could result in contempt of court. Lukwago raised concerns about the independence of the court and sought clarification from the Court Martial chairperson on who was in charge. Mugabe suggested that the legal team could exert pressure on the authorities to produce Maj Iduli or use other means to resolve the issue.
Army prosecutor Lt Col Raphael Mugisha questioned Kiiza's conduct during a previous session, implying that Kiiza had been unprofessional by engaging in physical exercises outside the courtroom before the hearing. Kiiza, however, responded by indicating that he would write to the chief of defense forces (CDF) to demand the names of those responsible for the abduction of Besigye.
Roland Tugume, a lawyer, applied to join as amicus curiae (friend of the court), citing concerns over the conduct of the judge advocate and the treatment of the accused. However, Besigye’s lawyers expressed their displeasure with the idea of accepting a ruling on this application, as they did not have instructions to receive it.
At the end of the session, the defense lawyers briefed journalists outside the courtroom, but their address was disrupted by a vehicle with a siren, making it difficult for the media to hear their statements. On Monday, Karua was denied a certificate by the Uganda Law Council, citing several reasons, including her previous confrontations with the chief justice and her involvement in the case as a potential witness.
The Law Council also questioned whether she was bringing any special legal skills to the country. Besigye and three other human rights defenders, including lawyers Andrew Karamagi, Anthony Odur, and Godwin Toko, have since challenged the trial in the East African Court of Justice, seeking compensation of $100,000 (over Shs 360 million) for what they describe as an illegal arrest from Kenya and subsequent trial.
This is not the first time Besigye has appeared before the Court Martial. In 2006, he was charged with treason, rape, and concealment of treason, though the charges were later dismissed. Besigye has repeatedly accused the state of political persecution rather than legitimate prosecution, as he has faced numerous charges in various courts without any conviction. By URN / The Observer
