Besigye Lawyers Seek Constitutional Court Intervention Over Fast-Tracked Trial

Besigye’s lawyers want the Constitutional Court to intervene, arguing that the trial schedule is too rushed and does not allow enough time to prepare a fair defence.

Veteran opposition politician Kizza Besigye’s legal team is preparing to seek intervention from the Constitutional Court, arguing that the trial schedule set by the High Court is unreasonably rushed despite their client having spent more than 18 months in detention.

The issue arose on Monday before Justice Emmanuel Baguma, who scheduled June 8 for the final pre-hearing session and the swearing-in of assessors, with the main hearing set to begin on July 11 when prosecution witnesses are expected to testify.

Besigye’s lawyers objected to the timeline, saying it does not provide enough time to prepare their defence, particularly after receiving additional prosecution evidence at a late stage.

Lead counsel Erias Lukwago told court that the defence required at least one month to adequately consult with their clients and organise their case.

“We request at least a month to be able to work out modalities with our clients. We cannot do it here because prison officers are always listening, yet we need to consult with them in confidence,” Lukwago said.

The prosecution, led by Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, argued that sufficient disclosures had already been made on January 21 and March 4, 2026, along with further updates after the withdrawal of an application seeking to conceal witness identities.

However, Lukwago rejected the prosecution’s position, claiming the State was effectively trying to achieve through scheduling what it had earlier sought through the withdrawn witness protection application.

He also noted that the defence had recently been served with more than ten hours of audiovisual evidence, making it difficult to adequately prepare within the available time.

The dispute also revived concerns over witness disclosure. The withdrawn prosecution application had proposed identifying witnesses only as Witness A to Witness F, with their identities disclosed seven days before testimony, a proposal strongly opposed by the defence.

Following consultations with the accused persons, prosecution lawyer Fred Mpanga suggested that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court for guidance on whether a seven-day disclosure period meets constitutional standards for a fair trial.

Justice Baguma said his ruling on the proposed Constitutional Court referral would be issued through the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).

The defence further complained about inconsistencies in the prosecution’s disclosures, noting that affidavits from only five witnesses had been served despite earlier indications that six witnesses would testify.

Additional concerns were raised over delays in serving court documents. While prosecution papers were initially served only to counsel for the third accused, Denis Oola, Besigye’s lawyers received theirs on May 30, a day after the agreed deadline of May 29.

Although the defence requested sanctions over the delayed service, Justice Baguma declined and directed that proceedings continue.

Representatives of Besigye and co-accused Obeid Lutale were eventually served on Monday after rejecting the earlier late service.

The court is expected to determine the next course of action in its upcoming ruling, potentially paving the way for further legal challenges over the pace and structure of the high-profile trial.