Besigye Sues Muhoozi Over Martha Karua's Deportation

Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale have filed an application with the High Court Criminal Division in Uganda, challenging the deportation of their lead lawyer, Martha Karua. The applicants contend that Karua's deportation on June 22, 2026, as a “prohibited immigrant” or “persona non grata,” violated their constitutional rights to a fair hearing, legal representation of choice, and privacy. They have named Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Attorney General as respondents, arguing that the action is part of a broader campaign to undermine their defense in an ongoing treason case. The application seeks a declaration that their rights were infringed and calls for orders to prevent future obstruction of their legal team.

A significant legal challenge has emerged in Uganda, as prominent opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale, have initiated proceedings in the High Court Criminal Division. Their application targets Chief of Defence Forces Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Attorney General, seeking a declaration that their constitutional rights were violated by the recent deportation of their lead lawyer, Martha Karua. Karua, a distinguished Kenyan lawyer, was allegedly blocked from entering Uganda, detained, and subsequently deported on June 22, 2026, after being classified as a prohibited immigrant.

This case transcends a mere immigration dispute; it delves into the fundamental tenets of justice and due process in Uganda. The applicants assert that Karua's deportation is a calculated move to cripple their legal defense in a high-profile treason case, thereby undermining their right to a fair trial and legal representation. The incident has drawn regional attention, with human rights organizations condemning the action as a violation of international treaties and an attempt to suppress trial observation.

This article will meticulously examine the constitutional and statutory framework underpinning fair trial rights and immigration control in Uganda. It will analyze the specific claims made by Besigye and Lutale regarding the alleged infringements of their rights, the role of state actors, and the potential ramifications of the High Court's decision for the independence of the legal profession and the broader landscape of human rights and rule of law in Uganda.

The legal framework governing fundamental rights in Uganda is primarily enshrined in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda. Key among these are Article 28, which guarantees the right to a fair, speedy, and public hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations or any criminal charge, and Article 44(c), which explicitly lists the right to a fair hearing as a non-derogable right, meaning it cannot be suspended under any circumstances. Furthermore, Article 28(3)(d) specifically provides that every person charged with a criminal offence shall be permitted to appear before the court in person or, at their own expense, by a lawyer of their choice.

Conversely, the state's power to regulate entry and stay of foreign nationals is governed by the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap. 66. This Act outlines the procedures for immigration control, including the classification of individuals as prohibited immigrants and the grounds for deportation. The application by Dr. Besigye and Hajji Lutale is filed under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, which provides avenues for individuals to seek redress for alleged violations of their constitutional rights.

This legal challenge arises against a backdrop of ongoing political and legal tensions. Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale are currently facing treason charges, a case that has seen their legal team allegedly subjected to various forms of obstruction. Martha Karua had been their duly instructed lead counsel since November 2024. Notably, another lawyer on their defense team, Erias Lukwago, was reportedly arrested, militarily detained, and prosecuted on allegations of misprision of treason, which the applicants contend was initiated to obstruct their defense. The first respondent, General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who serves as the Chief of Defence Forces, has publicly claimed responsibility for Karua's deportation, stating that her presence would have compromised national security and public order.

The core of Besigye and Lutale's application rests on the alleged violation of their fundamental constitutional rights, particularly the non-derogable right to a fair hearing and the right to legal representation of their choice, as guaranteed by Articles 28 and 44(c) of the Constitution. They argue that the deportation of their lead counsel, Martha Karua, directly impedes their ability to prepare and present an effective defense in their treason trial. The High Court Criminal Division, where the application is filed, possesses the jurisdiction to hear such matters under the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act and various constitutional provisions.

A critical point of contention is the classification of Martha Karua as a “prohibited immigrant” or “persona non grata.” The applicants contend that these are not among the lawful grounds for classifying a person as a prohibited immigrant under Uganda's Citizenship and Immigration Control Act, Cap. 66. They further allege that the decision to deport Karua was made without affording her an opportunity to be heard, thereby contravening the constitutional guarantees of fair hearing and due process. The confiscation of Karua’s mobile phones is also cited as a violation of their constitutional rights to privacy and a fair hearing, as it compromised confidential advocate-client communications.

The applicants also highlight a pattern of alleged obstruction targeting their legal team, including the arrest and prosecution of lawyer Erias Lukwago, which they assert amounts to political persecution and unlawful interference with the independence of the legal profession. General Muhoozi Kainerugaba's public statements, where he claimed responsibility for Karua's deportation and allegedly declared Besigye guilty before trial, are presented as further evidence of interference with judicial independence and a violation of the presumption of innocence. This raises significant questions about the separation of powers and the executive's respect for judicial processes.

This case echoes broader concerns about access to justice and the rule of law. The Supreme Court of Uganda has previously affirmed the importance of legal representation, as seen in its decision to stay a Constitutional Court ruling that allowed lawyers to participate in small claims cases, emphasizing the constitutional right to a fair hearing which includes legal representation. While the Constitutional Court recently struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that mandated automatic acquittals for non-derogable rights violations, underscoring the need for substantive trials, this current application focuses on the *prevention* of a fair trial through the denial of counsel. The international community, including Amnesty International, has also weighed in, describing Karua's deportation as a violation of the East Africa Community Treaty and an attempt to stifle trial observation, highlighting regional implications for the free movement of legal professionals and the integrity of judicial processes.

The application by Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale represents a critical juncture for the protection of constitutional rights and the independence of the legal profession in Uganda. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the inherent risks, particularly for foreign counsel, involved in politically sensitive litigation. It highlights the imperative for robust advocacy to safeguard the right to legal representation of choice and to uphold advocate-client privilege against state interference. The outcome will undoubtedly influence the operational environment for lawyers and the confidence in the judicial system's ability to protect fundamental freedoms.

Moving forward, all eyes will be on the High Court's deliberations. Its interpretation of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act regarding the grounds for declaring an individual a “prohibited immigrant” and its balancing of state security prerogatives against the non-derogable right to a fair hearing will set a significant precedent. The court's decision will have far-reaching implications for due process, the rule of law, and the perceived independence of the judiciary in Uganda. The legal community, both domestically and across the East African region, must continue to monitor this case closely, advocating for adherence to constitutional principles and international human rights standards to ensure that justice is not only done but is also seen to be done.