Besigye, Lutale reject alternative lawyers, insist on Karua and Lukwago

Veteran opposition politician Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajj Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya, have firmly rejected the High Court's directive to accept alternative legal representation, insisting on their preferred legal team led by Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua and former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago. They contend that any attempt to compel them to abandon their chosen lawyers constitutes a grave violation of their constitutional right to a fair trial and legal representation of choice, as enshrined in Uganda's Constitution. This stance comes amidst allegations that the state has deliberately incapacitated their defence team through the deportation of Karua and the arrest and subsequent charging of Lukwago with misprision of treason, raising significant concerns about judicial independence and the integrity of the legal process in high-profile political cases.

The ongoing legal proceedings involving Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya have brought into sharp focus the fundamental right to legal representation of choice within Uganda's justice system. Accused of treason and misprision of treason, charges that carry a potential death sentence, Besigye and Lutale have vehemently resisted judicial directives to appoint new counsel, steadfastly maintaining their preference for a legal team comprising Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua and prominent Ugandan lawyer Erias Lukwago. This insistence is predicated on the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing, which includes the right to counsel of one's choosing.

This high-stakes legal battle transcends the immediate fate of the accused, raising profound questions about the independence of the judiciary, the protection of human rights, and the sanctity of the legal profession in Uganda. The alleged actions by state actors against their chosen lawyers – the deportation of Karua and the arrest of Lukwago – have been widely interpreted as deliberate attempts to undermine their defence, thereby challenging the very tenets of constitutionalism and the rule of law. The case thus serves as a critical barometer for the state of legal freedoms and fair trial guarantees in Uganda, drawing significant attention from both domestic and international legal communities.

The right to a fair hearing in Uganda is a cornerstone of its constitutional framework, primarily enshrined in Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Specifically, Article 28(3)(d) provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall "be permitted to appear before the court in person or, at that person's own expense, by a lawyer of his or her choice." Furthermore, for offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life, Article 28(3)(e) mandates that the accused is "entitled to legal representation at the expense of the State." Given that Dr. Besigye and Hajj Lutale face treason charges, which are capital offences, their right to robust legal representation is unequivocally protected under these provisions.

The Advocates Act, Cap. 267, and its subsidiary legislation, including the Advocates (Professional Requirements for Admission of Persons Enrolled in Foreign Jurisdictions) Regulations, 2022, govern the practice of law in Uganda, including the admission of foreign counsel. Section 18 of the Advocates Act allows for foreign lawyers from Commonwealth countries to obtain a special practicing certificate to appear in a specific case, often requiring affiliation with a local firm. This framework is crucial to understanding the procedural hurdles and political dimensions surrounding Martha Karua's involvement in the case, as well as the broader implications for cross-border legal practice within the East African Community.

The core of the dispute lies in the interpretation and enforcement of the constitutional right to legal representation of choice. Dr. Besigye and Hajj Lutale argue that this right is absolute and inherent, not subject to state interference or judicial discretion to compel alternative counsel. Their position is buttressed by the fact that they are facing charges of treason and misprision of treason, which carry severe penalties, including a possible death sentence, thus elevating the importance of their right to effective and chosen legal defence.

The accused have explicitly alleged that the state has engaged in a concerted effort to dismantle their defence team. This includes the deportation of Kenyan Senior Counsel Martha Karua from Uganda in June 2026, despite her having been granted a temporary practicing certificate by the Uganda Law Council in January 2025. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, the Chief of Defence Forces, publicly claimed responsibility for Karua's deportation, citing national security concerns, an assertion that has been challenged by Karua in the High Court. Concurrently, Erias Lukwago, a prominent Ugandan lawyer and co-lead counsel, was arrested in June 2026, charged with misprision of treason, denied bail, and subsequently remanded to prison, with reports indicating a deterioration of his health.

These actions have drawn strong condemnation from legal professional bodies. The East Africa Law Society (EALS) and the Uganda Law Society (ULS) have voiced concerns that such measures undermine the independence of the legal profession, impede the right to a fair trial, and contravene regional integration principles. The ULS, in particular, has urged the Judiciary to denounce statements by President Museveni regarding Besigye's trial and bail, viewing them as unconstitutional interference with judicial independence. The collective response from 40 lawyers across 12 law firms, who have united to represent Besigye and Lutale in a human rights enforcement action, underscores the gravity of the constitutional issues at stake, particularly concerning the right to a fair hearing and legal representation.

The High Court, presided over by Justice Emmanuel Baguma, faces a delicate balancing act. While the court initially granted the accused time to find new lawyers following the unavailability of Karua and Lukwago, the accused's firm rejection of this directive places the court in a position where it must either uphold the accused's constitutional right to counsel of choice, even if it means challenging state actions, or risk being perceived as complicit in undermining fair trial guarantees. The implications extend beyond this specific case, potentially setting precedents for how the right to legal representation is protected in politically sensitive trials and how foreign counsel are treated within Uganda's legal framework.

The insistence by Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale on their chosen legal team, despite alleged state interference, represents a critical juncture for constitutionalism and the rule of law in Uganda. For legal practitioners, this case highlights the enduring challenges in defending fundamental rights, particularly in high-profile political matters where the independence of the bar and the bench may be tested. The actions taken against Martha Karua and Erias Lukwago serve as a stark reminder of the potential risks faced by lawyers who undertake such defence, emphasizing the need for robust protections for legal professionals.

Going forward, practitioners should closely monitor the High Court's decision on this matter, as it will undoubtedly shape the landscape of legal representation rights in Uganda. The outcome will have significant implications for the interpretation of Article 28 of the Constitution, the application of the Advocates Act concerning foreign counsel, and the broader commitment to fair trial standards. It also underscores the importance of regional solidarity among legal bodies in upholding human rights and judicial independence across East Africa. The legal community must remain vigilant in advocating for the protection of the right to counsel of choice, ensuring that no accused person is denied a fair defence due to external pressures or politically motivated actions.