Court Rejects Besigye Bid to Halt Treason Trial, Hearing Set for July 13

The High Court Criminal Division in Uganda has dismissed an application by prominent opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale, seeking to terminate treason proceedings against them. Justice Emmanuel Baguma ruled that the application, which alleged severe violations of constitutional rights including unlawful abduction and incommunicado detention, was incompetent and an abuse of court process designed to delay the substantive trial. The court emphasized that alleged human rights violations do not automatically warrant the termination of criminal proceedings, citing a recent Constitutional Court decision. This ruling clears the path for the long-standing treason trial to commence on July 13, 2026, underscoring the judiciary's stance against procedural delays in high-profile cases.

In a significant development for Uganda's legal and political landscape, the High Court Criminal Division has rejected an application by Dr. Kizza Besigye, a veteran opposition leader, and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale, to halt their ongoing treason trial. The ruling, delivered by Justice Emmanuel Baguma, marks a critical procedural juncture in a case that has garnered considerable national and international attention, highlighting the intricate balance between state security, prosecutorial discretion, and the constitutional rights of accused persons. This decision not only paves the way for the substantive hearing of the treason charges but also reinforces the judiciary's approach to applications perceived as dilatory tactics in criminal proceedings.

The application sought to nullify the treason charges on grounds of alleged egregious violations of the applicants' constitutional rights, including unlawful abduction and prolonged detention without due process. The court's dismissal, however, signals a firm judicial posture against the termination of criminal proceedings solely based on such allegations, particularly in light of recent jurisprudence from the Constitutional Court. This article delves into the legal rationale behind Justice Baguma's decision, examining its implications for criminal procedure, fair trial guarantees, and the broader administration of justice in Uganda.

The thesis of this article is to critically analyze the High Court's rejection of Besigye and Lutale's application, focusing on the statutory and doctrinal context of treason in Uganda, the specific arguments raised by the defence, and the court's interpretation of constitutional provisions and recent precedents. It will further explore the practical implications for legal practitioners navigating complex criminal cases involving allegations of human rights abuses and the judiciary's evolving stance on procedural challenges.

The offence of treason in Uganda is a grave charge, primarily codified under Article 23 (and Section 25) of the Penal Code Act, Cap. 120, Laws of Uganda, and carries the ultimate penalty of death. It encompasses acts such as levying war against the Republic, attempting to cause the death of the President, or plotting to overthrow the government by force of arms. Dr. Kizza Besigye's encounters with treason charges are not new; he faced similar accusations in 2005, which were subsequently dropped. The current charges against him and Hajji Obeid Lutale stem from allegations of plotting to overthrow the government, soliciting funds, acquiring weapons, and planning paramilitary operations, including purported assassination plots against the President.

Procedurally, Besigye's journey through the justice system for these charges has been protracted and complex. Initially, he was presented before a military tribunal, a move that was later challenged and ultimately halted by the Supreme Court, which affirmed that civilians cannot be tried by court-martial. This transfer of jurisdiction to civilian courts set the stage for the current proceedings before the High Court Criminal Division. Accused persons in Uganda possess constitutional rights, notably enshrined in Articles 23 and 28 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, guaranteeing personal liberty and the right to a fair hearing. These provisions form the bedrock for challenging criminal proceedings where fundamental rights are perceived to have been violated, often through applications seeking to quash indictments or stay proceedings due to abuse of process or irreparable prejudice to a fair trial.

The core of Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale's application to terminate the treason proceedings rested on allegations of severe constitutional rights violations. Their legal team contended that the accused were unlawfully abducted from Nairobi, Kenya, by Ugandan security operatives and forcibly returned without adherence to legal extradition procedures. Further claims included incommunicado detention at Makindye Military Barracks, denial of access to legal counsel and medical personnel, detention beyond the constitutionally mandated 48-hour limit before being presented to court, and confinement in a military facility not gazetted for civilian detainees. These alleged breaches, they argued, irreparably violated their right to a fair trial, necessitating the nullification of the treason charges and their unconditional release, alongside requests for rehabilitation.

Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the High Court Criminal Division, in dismissing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 227 of 2026, found the application to be both incompetent and an abuse of court process, primarily intended to delay the hearing of the main criminal case. A pivotal aspect of the court's reasoning was its reliance on the Constitutional Court's June 2026 decision in *Faruku Muhammad and Others v Attorney General and Others*. This landmark ruling struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that had previously allowed for the automatic acquittal of accused persons upon establishing human rights violations during criminal proceedings. Justice Baguma emphasized that while rights violations must be addressed, they do not automatically erase criminal responsibility, clarifying that alternative remedies such as constitutional petitions, habeas corpus applications, and judicial review are available for those alleging such violations, rather than seeking to terminate criminal proceedings altogether.

Furthermore, the court found the affidavit evidence presented by the applicants to be lacking credibility, describing it as "too shallow" and amounting to "speculation and conjecture" rather than concrete proof of the alleged constitutional violations. This highlights the high evidentiary bar required to successfully challenge criminal proceedings on such grounds. Justice Baguma underscored the judiciary's duty to balance the constitutional rights of accused persons with the public interest in ensuring accountability and due process for victims and society at large.

In a related procedural setback, a separate bail application by Besigye and Lutale was also dismissed for "want of prosecution." The defence team declined to proceed with the bail hearing in the absence of their preferred lead counsel, Martha Karua and Erias Lukwago, despite being represented by a large consortium of law firms. The court viewed this insistence as an abuse of process and a deliberate attempt to delay proceedings, further solidifying its stance against perceived dilatory tactics. This consistent judicial approach underscores a growing intolerance for procedural maneuvers that impede the expeditious resolution of criminal matters, particularly those of significant public interest.

The High Court's rejection of Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale's application to terminate their treason trial carries significant implications for legal practitioners in Uganda. It firmly establishes that while constitutional rights violations are serious and warrant redress, they do not automatically lead to the termination of criminal proceedings. The precedent set by *Faruku Muhammad and Others v Attorney General and Others* and reinforced by Justice Baguma's ruling, mandates that defence counsel must pursue appropriate remedies for rights violations through distinct legal avenues, rather than as a direct means to halt a trial. This decision signals a judicial commitment to ensuring that substantive criminal trials proceed, balancing individual rights with the public interest in justice and accountability.

Practitioners must now be acutely aware of the heightened evidentiary burden required to prove alleged constitutional breaches and the court's increased scrutiny of applications perceived as delaying tactics. The upcoming commencement of the treason trial on July 13, 2026, will be closely watched, offering further insights into the prosecution's case and the defence's strategy in light of these procedural setbacks. Legal professionals are encouraged to monitor the unfolding trial and any subsequent appeals to understand the evolving jurisprudence on fair trial rights, prosecutorial discretion, and the delicate equilibrium between state security and individual liberties within Uganda's legal framework.