Besigye seeks termination of treason trial over alleged abduction, torture

_______________

Former presidential candidate Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale, have petitioned the High Court seeking to terminate the treason proceedings against them, arguing that a series of alleged constitutional violations and human rights abuses have irreparably tainted the criminal case.

In a miscellaneous application filed before the Criminal Division of the High Court, Besigye and Lutale accuse the Chief of Defence Forces (CDF), Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and former Chieftaincy of Military Intelligence (now Defence Intelligence and Security) officers; Col. Peter Ahimbisibwe (then director of Counter-Terrorism) and Lt. Col. Ephraim Byaruhanga (then director special operations), as well as the Attorney General of violating their constitutional rights.

According to Besigye and Lutale, the above-mentioned officers violated their rights through an unlawful cross-border abduction from Kenya, illegal military detention, torture, denial of due process and actions that have undermined their right to a fair trial.

The application arises from Criminal Session Case number 335 of 2025 in which Besigye, Lutale and Capt. Denis Oola Oyaa are facing charges of treason and misprision of treason before the High Court. Oyaa is a Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) officer attached to the armoured brigade.

The grounds raised

The two applicants want court to declare that prosecution against them is unconstitutional, unlawful and a violation of the principles of a fair trial, human rights and the rule of law.

They are also seeking orders nullifying the criminal proceedings, securing their unconditional release from detention and directing the Government to facilitate their treatment and rehabilitation.

According to court documents, Besigye and Lutale contend that on November 16, 2024, they travelled to Nairobi, Kenya, to attend a book launch organised by Kenyan politician and lawyer Martha Karua.

However, they allege that while lawfully going about their activities in Nairobi, they were forcefully abducted by Ugandan security operatives and transported back to Uganda without any extradition proceedings or judicial authorisation.

The applicants contend that the operation was conducted by military personnel acting under the command of senior officers of the UPDF, including the second and third respondents.

The court documents state that after being brought to Uganda, the two were detained incommunicado at Makindye Military Barracks for four days before being presented before the General Court Martial.

They claim they were denied access to lawyers, relatives, personal doctors and other constitutional safeguards available to arrested persons.

The applicants further contend that they were held in a military facility that is not legally gazetted for the detention of civilians and that they were not informed of the reasons for their arrest during the period of detention.

According to the application, the detention exceeded the constitutional 48-hour limit and subjected them to mental and psychological torture.

They argue that the actions violated Articles 23, 24, 28, 42 and 44 of the Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty, protection from torture, fair hearing and access to justice.

The applicants are seeking declarations that their alleged abduction from Kenya and subsequent extraordinary rendition into Uganda violated both Ugandan law and principles governing international extradition.

They further argue that because the alleged violations formed the foundation of the criminal proceedings, the prosecution that followed cannot be sustained in law.

Court documents indicate that on November 20, 2024, Besigye and Lutale were arraigned before the General Court Martial and charged with security-related offences as well as unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

The applicants state that they consistently objected to being tried before a military court, arguing that they are civilians and, therefore, not subject to military jurisdiction.

They contend that the charges were brought despite existing Constitutional Court decisions that had questioned the trial of civilians before military tribunals.

The application notes that following the Supreme Court decision in the case of the Attorney General versus Michael Kabaziguruka (former Nakawa MP), the applicants were subsequently charged before the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court on February 21, 2025, with treason and misprision of treason.

The applicants maintain that the transfer of the case from the military justice system to civilian courts did not cure the violations that had already occurred.

Another major complaint raised in the application concerns the period between the Supreme Court ruling and the commencement of civilian proceedings.

The applicants argue that they remained under military ordered detention even after the Supreme Court reaffirmed the illegality of military proceedings against civilians.

According to the application, this violated their constitutional rights to liberty, fair hearing and administrative justice.

Besigye and Lutale also challenge the legality of their committal to the High Court.

The applicants state that on May 29, 2025, the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court committed them to the High Court for trial in the absence of legal representation.

They contend that conducting committal proceedings without their advocates infringed their constitutional right to legal representation and a fair hearing.

Delayed disclosure of evidence

The applicants further accuse the prosecution of delaying disclosure of evidence required for trial preparation.

According to court documents, the High Court issued orders directing the prosecution to make full disclosure of the evidence it intended to rely on.

However, the applicants contend that full disclosure was delayed, affecting their ability to prepare an effective defence.

They argue that by the beginning of June 2026, the trial had still not commenced because prosecution disclosure was only completed on June 1, 2026.

The applicants contend that the delay has violated their constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial.

They argue that they have remained in detention for an extended period while waiting for the prosecution process to be completed.

Confiscated property, CDF statements

The application also raises concerns about property allegedly confiscated during the arrest in Kenya.

The applicants claim that their personal belongings, including mobile telephones and other effects, were taken and have not been returned.

They argue that the confiscation violated their constitutional right to own and enjoy property.

One of the central issues in the application relates to public statements allegedly made by the CDF, Gen. Kainerugaba, regarding Besigye.

The applicants contend that the statements prejudged Besigye’s guilt and threatened his constitutional rights.

According to the application, the CDF allegedly made several statements suggesting that Besigye would be hanged, shot or remain imprisoned indefinitely.

The applicants argue that such statements were made while Besigye remained in custody and while criminal proceedings were still pending.

They contend that the statements violated the presumption of innocence and interfered with the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court.

The application further alleges that the remarks amounted to psychological torture and created fear regarding the applicants’ safety and well-being.

The applicants maintain that because the statements came from the country’s highest-ranking military officer, they carried significant weight and risked undermining public confidence in the fairness of the judicial process.

Supporting the application is an affidavit sworn by advocate Tumusiime Kakuru, who states that he has been part of the defence team since the applicants were first arraigned before the General Court Martial.

Kakuru asserts that the cumulative effect of the alleged violations, including the abduction, military detention, delayed disclosure, prejudicial public statements and prolonged incarceration, has fundamentally compromised the integrity of the criminal proceedings.

He argues that an unfair trial cannot be cured merely by transferring proceedings from a military court to a civilian court.

The applicants, therefore, want the High Court to declare the proceedings unconstitutional, terminate the prosecution and order their immediate release.

They are also seeking orders directing the Government to facilitate their treatment and rehabilitation at the African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims or another suitable facility.