Besigye treason case resumes with state attorney under cross examination

________________

The treason case involving four-time presidential candidate Kizza Besigye and his aide, Hajji Obeid Lutale, resumes today, May 6, 2026, at the High Court, with further cross-examination of a state attorney in an application by the prosecution seeking to conceal the identities of six witnesses.

Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo is expected to continue facing questions from defence lawyers led by Kenyan advocate Martha Karua.

Other defence lawyers, include Erias Lukwago, Earnest Kalibbala, Fred Mpanga, Bayern Turinawe, and Farouk Kamulegeya. The State is represented by Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka.

Besigye and Lutale are jointly charged with treason and misprision of treason alongside Capt. Denish Oyaa Oola of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, attached to the Armoured Brigade. The offence carries a maximum penalty of death upon conviction.

In the last court session (April 23, 2026), Kyomuhendo told court presided over by Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the Criminal Division of the High Court, that six prosecution witnesses face security threats, prompting an application to conceal their identities.

The prosecution wants the witnesses to testify under pseudonyms A, B, C, D, E and F and for their identities to be excluded from the public record in all proceedings related to the case.

“If the witnesses’ identities are disclosed at this stage, their lives and those of their loved ones would be in danger,” Kyomuhendo told court.

Kyomuhendo said no formal protection measures are in place for the witnesses, but argued that, if the application is granted, the prosecution would ensure their protection.

The prosecutor told court that this is not the first time he is handling matters involving Besigye.

Defence lawyer Fred Mpanga asked Kyomuhendo to confirm that, in his 16 years of practice, there is no statutory framework providing for witness protection in Uganda.

In response, Kyomuhendo cited Article 28 of the Constitution on the right to a fair hearing, noting that it comprises several elements.

The prosecutor also referred the court to the Constitutional Court decision in Soon-Yeon Kong Kim verse Attorney General, which he said held that while an accused person has the right to prepare a defence, the right to disclosure is not absolute and subject to protection of witnesses and state secrets.

Mpanga pressed Kyomuhendo to identify a specific legal provision recognising witness protection as an exception in the Constitutional Court decision, prompting him to request time to review the matter and respond. However, the judge allowed the cross-examination to proceed because of time.

He argued that the court has inherent powers to determine appropriate witness protection mechanisms.

Kyomuhendo acknowledged that witness protection is not expressly provided for under Ugandan statutory law but pointed to the rules of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of the High Court as offering guidance, noting that similar practices applied there (ICD) can be applied in the Criminal Division of the High Court.

The prosecutor said there exists internal witness protection guidelines, describing them as policy, in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Nonetheless, he maintained that constitutional provisions were interpreted to support witness protection measures.

Besigye's respond

In rebuttal, Besigye contended that concealing the identities of six out of ten prosecution witnesses, and limiting disclosure of evidence undermines his ability to prepare a defence, particularly in a case where he faces a death penalty.

Besigye states that the Constitution guarantees him adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, including the right to know and challenge his accusers, which he says are non-derogable.

He further argues that in previous treason cases against him in 2005 and 2016, there was no witness anonymity or in-camera proceedings, and no witnesses reported threats or harm.

According to Besigye, concealing witness identities would prevent him from investigating their credibility, testing possible bias, and effectively cross-examining them, thereby undermining the adversarial justice system.

The case

Prosecution alleges that Besigye, Lutale, Oola and others still at large, between 2023 and 2024 in various countries, including Switzerland, Greece, Kenya and in Kampala (Uganda), contrived to overturn the Government of Uganda by force of arms.

According to the charge sheet, the accused, knowing that another person intended to commit treason, did not give information to Ugandan authorities to prevent the commission of treason, which tantamount to misprision of treason.