Besigye lawyer Eron Kiiza jail term ‘lenient’ — State attorney
Kiiza's lawyers, led by Peter Walubiri, are pushing for his release from Kitalya Prison, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ban on trying civilians in military courts should restore Kiiza’s right to personal liberty.
Advocate Eron Kiiza is one of four-time presidential candidate Kizza Besigye. (File photo)
________________
A senior state attorney has defended the nine-month jail term slapped on advocate Eron Kiiza by the General Court Martial, arguing that it is a lenient sentence.
Kiiza is one of four-time presidential candidate Kizza Besigye.
Kiiza's lawyers, led by Peter Walubiri, are pushing for his release from Kitalya Prison, arguing that the Supreme Court’s ban on trying civilians in military courts should restore Kiiza’s right to personal liberty.
On January 25, 2025, lawyers for Kiiza and the Attorney General (AG) returned to court expecting to receive a ruling from Justice Dr Douglas Karekona Singiza of the Civil Division of the High Court in Kampala.
However, neither side met the court's deadline for filing written submissions.
Senior state attorney Johnson Natuhwera, representing AG claimed they responded to some applications but could not find others online, as only affidavits were available without the main application.
The judge delayed his decision, seeking more time to ascertain the truth, and allowed oral submissions from both parties.
Natuhwera argued that Kiiza was convicted by the General Court Martial, which operates under the Ugandan Constitution.
Natuhwera noted that Kiiza's sentence was in line with Section 169 I (g) of the UPDF Act, which governs an advocate's conduct before the courtAccording to the state attorney, the law allows for up to five years in jail for contempt of court by a lawyer.“The Court Martial was lenient in handing Kiiza a nine-month jail term,” Natuhwera said.
He argued that AG was wrongly sued since Kiiza’s case involves criminal proceedings, and the AG only handles civil matters.
When the judge asked him who the correct respondent should be, Natuhwera said various agencies, including the Director of Public Prosecutions, could represent Uganda. However, the Judge noted that the DPP does not possess Kiiza’s file.
Natuhwera maintained that Kiiza chose to sue the wrong party and that his application was misconceived.
He emphasised that Kiiza's rights are guaranteed under the Constitution, and the Supreme Court did not set aside his conviction.
Counter argument
Kiiza's lawyers led by Walubiri countered that the Civil Division Court handles non-derogable rights, such as enforcing the right to liberty, and that AG is the proper respondent.
They argued that Kiiza, a civilian, was convicted without a trial by the General Court Martial and that the Supreme Court’s decision should be upheld.
Walubiri argued that Kiiza was subjected to contempt proceedings before a court that lacked competency and jurisdiction due to its composition, mode of appointment, and other reasons.
Walubiri emphasised that if these were criminal trials, they would be transferred to criminal courts.
How Kiiza was jailed
As the General Court Martial convened to hear the case of Dr Kizza Besigye and his aide Haji Obeid Lutale on January 7, 2025, chaotic scenes played out in the court.
Besigye, the former Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) president and Lutale are facing charges of subversion and unlawful possession of firearms.
As Kiiza, whom is one of the defence lawyers, proceeded to the bar (place designated for lawyers), he banged the angle bars, a conduct the judge advocate, Brig. Gen. Richard Tukacungurwa, said was contemptuous. Consequently, Kiiza was intercepted by military officers and a scuffle ensued.
Amid the chaotic scenes in the courtroom, the army court chairman, Brig. Gen Robert Freeman Mugabe and the members of the court, adjourned the case for 30 minutes and excused themselves from the courtroom. Kiiza was later brought and sentenced to nine months in jail.
In his ruling, Mugabe said on December 10 last year, Kiiza expressed gross professional misconduct and he was warned to desist from the same.
However, Kiiza exhibited the same when he confronted a court orderly, who was guiding him where to sit, according to Mugabe. Kiiza was not given an opportunity to speak after the contempt charge was read out.