Besigye: Court directs prosecution on an application for witness protection
Prior to the directive, the prosecution asked court to allow delayed disclosure of six key witness statements in the criminal case involving Kizza Besigye and two others, saying the identities of the witnesses must be protected.
Defence lawyers argued that the State had previously committed to making full disclosure of all evidence, but instead served statements without the necessary particulars.
KAMPALA - Court has ordered the prosecution to personally serve an application in which they seek protection of witnesses to the four-time presidential candidate Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, as well as their lawyers.
The judge directed that the service be effected in court on March 11, 2026, when the accused and some of the lawyers said that they were not served the application.
Following the service, Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the Criminal Division of the High Court ordered the accused persons and their counsel to file their reply to the application within two weeks.
The court ordered that the reply must be filed by March 26, 2026.
The prosecution will then have the opportunity to file a rejoinder, if any, by March 30, 2026.
The matter was consequently adjourned to March 31, 2026, when the case will come up for mention, as earlier requested by the parties.
The judge emphasised that the main matter will return to court on March 31, 2026, for mention to confirm compliance with the filing timelines and to give further directions.
Prior to the directive, the prosecution asked court to allow delayed disclosure of six key witness statements in the criminal case involving Kizza Besigye and two others, saying the identities of the witnesses must be protected.
Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko told court that the State had already served the defence with five witness statements on March 11.
However, he explained that the statements were served without the witnesses’ personal particulars, including their names, places of residence, age and occupation.
However, the defence opposed the application, accusing the prosecution of acting in bad faith and failing to comply with earlier court directions on full disclosure.
Defence lawyers argued that the State had previously committed to making full disclosure of all evidence, but instead served statements without the necessary particulars.
They told court that witness statements should not merely contain narratives but must include all identifying details of the witnesses so the defence can properly prepare its case.
The defence further argued that the prosecution had been in possession of the statements since March 2025, raising questions about why the State delayed disclosure until now.