High court judge Simon Peter Kinobe has ruled that Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba has not interfered with the treason trial of Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused Obeid Lutale.
Besigye and Lutale had petitioned the High court over the deportation of their lawyer, senior counsel Martha Karua, on June 22, 2026, and the subsequent abduction of another lawyer, Erias Lukwago, by army operatives, arguing that the incidents directly impaired their legal representation.
Karua and Lukwago were leading the duo’s defence in the ongoing treason case.
Although Muhoozi publicly declared on his social media account that he was behind Karua’s deportation and Lukwago’s abduction, and has on several occasions said Besigye will only leave Luzira Prison in a coffin, Kinobe ruled that Besigye had failed to establish a causal link between Karua’s exclusion from Uganda and an alleged violation of his constitutional right to legal representation.
The judge rejected the applicants’ claim that they had been denied a fair hearing, finding that the evidence did not establish deliberate interference by Muhoozi and the government or substantial impairment of their access to legal representation or a fair hearing.
Besigye and Lutale had argued that Karua’s deportation was unlawful and unfair, was made without giving her an opportunity to be heard, and was based on her being declared persona non grata, which they contended is not a recognised ground for declaring a person a prohibited immigrant under the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control Act.
The applicants, who sued the Attorney General and Muhoozi, also complained that Lukwago’s arrest and subsequent remand in Luzira Prison on charges of misprision of treason prevented him from participating in their defence as one of their lawyers.
In a 42-page ruling delivered on Tuesday, justice Kinobe dismissed the application, finding that Besigye and Lutale had failed to prove that the actions complained of substantially impaired their ability to obtain effective legal representation.
The judge noted that Besigye and Lutale continued to enjoy representation from approximately 13 law firms comprising more than 50 advocates of their own choosing.
Kinobe also pointed to the conduct of the trial court, which repeatedly adjourned proceedings to give the applicants time to reorganise their defence whenever difficulties concerning their legal representation arose.
The trial court also directed its registrar to provide Besigye and Lutale with a list of State Brief advocates from whom they could select lawyers if they wished to invoke that constitutional safeguard.
According to Kinobe, these measures were inconsistent with any suggestion that the trial court intended to deprive Besigye and Lutale of their right to counsel of their choice.
Karua deportation
On Karua, the judge declined to determine whether immigration authorities acted lawfully in blocking her entry into Uganda.
Kinobe ruled that a direct challenge to the immigration decision falls within the supervisory jurisdiction of the High court and should be brought through judicial review rather than through the procedure used by Besigye and Lutale in this matter.
The judge said Besigye and Lutale were at liberty to establish any infringement or threatened infringement of their constitutional rights arising from the consequences of the immigration decision, but found that the evidence before court did not establish such an infringement.
Kinobe further observed that Karua’s physical presence in Uganda was not, in every circumstance, indispensable to the applicants’ defence. He referred to the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025, and the Judicature (Visual-Audio Link) Rules, which provide for remote participation in judicial proceedings.
The judge said Besigye and Lutale could have sought appropriate directions from the trial court for Karua to participate remotely if they considered her involvement necessary for the preparation and conduct of their defence.
He nevertheless cautioned that the availability of virtual proceedings does not extinguish the constitutional right to counsel of one’s choice, but can provide one of the means through which meaningful legal representation is facilitated.
Lukwago’s detention
The court also considered the circumstances surrounding Lukwago’s absence from the proceedings. Kinobe said the evidence showed that Lukwago’s absence resulted from his detention, but held that the detention of a lawyer does not, by itself, establish a violation of another person’s constitutional right to legal representation.
The relevant question, according to the judge, was whether Lukwago’s absence, considered together with the other circumstances of the case, substantially impaired Besigye and Lutale’s ability to obtain effective legal representation.
The court found that Besigye and Lutale had failed to prove this. Kinobe further observed that the law applies equally to all persons and that the fact that a person is serving as counsel in ongoing litigation does not give that person immunity from the ordinary operation of criminal law.
The Attorney General, who represented Muhoozi and the government in the case, had earlier asked the court to dismiss the application, arguing that Besigye and Lutale remained adequately represented by a large team of lawyers.
The respondents also argued that the applicants had not demonstrated that any state agency deliberately interfered with their choice of counsel or that the absence of Karua and Lukwago had prejudiced their criminal trial.
On Karua’s immigration status, the Attorney General argued that the applicants had used the wrong legal procedure by attempting to challenge an administrative immigration decision through a constitutional application.
The Attorney General maintained that any challenge to the decision declaring Karua a prohibited immigrant should be pursued through judicial review.
The judge, however, emphasised that the right to counsel of one’s choice remains constitutionally protected, although its exercise must be within the law and should involve lawyers who are reasonably available to attend court and facilitate the expeditious conduct of proceedings.
The application was dismissed without an order as to costs, with the judge saying the case raised fundamental constitutional questions that should not be burdened with pecuniary sanctions.
Besigye, Lutale and Captain Denis Oola will return before Criminal Division Judge Emmanuel Baguma on August 18, 2026, when the court is expected to consider a medical report on whether Besigye is fit to stand trial.
