Uganda’s courts delivered a week of high-stakes decisions that stretched from the criminal dock to the appellate bench, exposing the complex connection between justice, due process, reputation and public accountability.
Across Kampala and Kabale, judges grappled with questions that went far beyond the fate of individual litigants: when should liberty yield to the interests of justice, how reliable is eyewitness testimony in a murder trial, and where should the law draw the line between free expression and defamation?
Lukwago remains behind bars
The most closely watched proceedings last week unfolded at the Makindye Chief Magistrate’s Court, where city lawyer and former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago failed in his bid to secure bail.
By Monday afternoon, optimism among his supporters had already begun to fade after chief magistrate Sarah Anne Basemera postponed the anticipated ruling until the following day.
When the decision finally came through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS), the court declined to release Lukwago, citing the seriousness of the offence, ongoing investigations, and concerns about the administration of justice.
The court did not ignore the arguments advanced by the defence. It acknowledged that Lukwago had a known place of residence, accepted that his three proposed sureties, Betty Aol Ocan, Michael Phillip Lulume Bayiga and Betty Bakireke Nambooze, were suitable, and recognised the medical evidence presented on his behalf.
Even so, the magistrate concluded that with the investigations still underway, Lukwago’s extensive public networks and the nature of the charges outweighed those considerations at this stage. While refusing bail, the court took a different approach to his health.
Prison authorities were ordered to transfer Lukwago to Mulago National Referral Hospital within 24 hours for a comprehensive specialist assessment. The court further directed that his wife and one advocate of his choice be granted access throughout the medical process.
Lukwago was subsequently transferred from Murchison Bay Prison to Mulago on Thursday, June 25, 2026. His lawyer, Medard Sseggona, told journalists that Lukwago had been suffering severe pain around the site of spinal surgery previously performed in India and remained physically weak. The court itself observed that the medical evidence “undoubtedly weighs in the applicant’s favour.”
Sseggona said doctors at Mulago were managing the condition but acknowledged that some aspects of treatment might ultimately require care abroad. “We have plans to take him to India, but only if and when he is released on bail,” he said.
For now, he added, the legal team’s priority remained unchanged. “Life first, then freedom second.”
Appeal court frees father and son
Hundreds of kilometres away in Kabale, the Court of Appeal overturned the murder convictions of a father and son after finding that the identification evidence relied upon during their trial was unsafe.
Justices F.M.S. Egonda Ntende, Oscar John Kihika and Jesse Byaruhanga Rugyema allowed the appeal filed by Ngabirano Moses and Barahukwa Richard, ordering their immediate release unless they were being held on other lawful charges.
The pair had been convicted by the High Court in May 2022 for the murder of Bukabeba Benson, who was attacked on November 9, 2017, in Karukara Cell, Rubanda district.
According to the prosecution, Benson had been walking home with Samwiri Tukamushaba at about 7:30 p.m. when the attack occurred. Benson suffered deep cut wounds and later died from sharp force trauma and massive external haemorrhage.
The prosecution’s case rested almost entirely on Tukamushaba’s claim that he recognised the attackers. The appellate court found significant weaknesses in that evidence.
Two defence witnesses testified that shortly after the incident Tukamushaba had admitted he had not recognised the assailants. The judges also noted that the trial court had failed to properly assess this contradiction against the broader body of evidence.
The circumstances of the attack compounded those concerns. It happened suddenly, at night, while Tukamushaba himself sustained injuries. The investigating officer was never called to testify, and the prosecution failed to produce the first police report.
The court held that it was “unable to treat the absence of the investigating officer and the first report of the offence to the police as harmless,” finding that those omissions left a substantial evidential gap on the crucial issue of identification.
Nor, the judges ruled, could the alleged land dispute relied upon as a motive compensate for weak identification evidence. Both the convictions and the 45-year prison sentences were set aside.
Deputy IGG wins defamation suit
The High Court Civil Division also delivered a significant ruling on the limits of online speech, awarding Deputy Inspector General of Government Anne Twinomugisha Muhairwe Shs100 million in general damages after finding that journalist and TikTok content creator Dean Luboowa Saava had defamed her.
Justice Joyce Kavuma ruled that Saava, through his TikTok platform TV10 GANO MAZIMA, had published false and malicious allegations in July 2025 intended to damage Muhairwe’s reputation.
The videos alleged that she had solicited and received Shs 200 million from engineers working on the Kaabong Road project, threatened to cancel contracts if payments were not made, engaged in corruption involving wetland funds and even consulted a witch doctor in pursuit of contracts.
According to the judgment, the statements portrayed her as “a corrupt and fraudulent person unfit to serve in the office of the Inspector General of Government.”
Muhairwe and Kakooza Savio Ntensibe, who had been wrongly identified as her personal assistant, denied all the allegations.
The court also noted that, in separate criminal proceedings, Saava had entered into a plea bargain admitting that what he had published was false. Having neither entered an appearance nor filed a defence, the case proceeded in his absence.
Justice Kavuma declined to award exemplary damages, saying there was no evidence that the defendant had profited from the publications. However, she permanently restrained him from making further defamatory statements, ordered him to publish a public apology on his TikTok platform and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
Gongodyo murder investigation takes a new turn
The investigation into the killing of Rugby Cranes player Sydney Gongodyo entered a new phase after prosecutors disclosed that fresh forensic evidence suggested some of those initially arrested might not have been involved in his death.
The case was adjourned to July 23, 2026, to allow detectives more time to pursue additional suspects.
Gongodyo, a forward for both the national rugby team and Stanbic Black Pirates Rugby Club, died after allegedly being attacked by a mob along Upper Naguru East Road on June 5, 2026. Witnesses and police said he had been accused of snatching a woman’s handbag before being assaulted. He later died at Mulago National Referral Hospital.
Four suspects – Obed Mugwisa, Elly Mondoni, Joseph Owino and Henry Kabugo – remain charged with murder, while three others had been arrested during the early stages of the investigation.
Isaac Kapalaga Kimeze, who is holding a watching brief for the Uganda Rugby Union, said the federation continued to work closely with investigators as police searched for additional suspects.
Magistrate rejects Mabirizi’s bid for recusal
At Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court, chief magistrate Ritah Neumbe Kidasa rejected lawyer Male Mabirizi’s application seeking her recusal from criminal proceedings in which he faces charges of broadcasting without a licence and publishing false information.
In a ruling dated June 25, 2026, Kidasa dismissed allegations that she was biased or had conducted herself improperly.
“To allow recusal on such grounds would set a dangerous precedent where litigants could disqualify judicial officers at will,” she ruled.
The magistrate observed that although Mabirizi had filed both civil and criminal cases against her, the existence of those suits, particularly those initiated by Mabirizi himself, could not automatically justify her removal from the case.
Citing the 2005 Kizza Besigye case, she held that allegations of judicial bias must be supported by credible evidence rather than dissatisfaction with court decisions. The matter was adjourned to July 10 for hearing.
