Related Articles
The treason trial of opposition politician Dr. Kizza Besigye has entered another tense and dramatic phase after the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) firmly asked the High Court to reject attempts to stop the case. The prosecution also opposed a fresh request by the defence to release Dr. Besigye and his co-accused on bail. The case has attracted strong public attention because of its political nature and the serious allegations involved.
The DPP, through Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, told court that the defence team is deliberately using legal tactics to delay the trial. According to the prosecution, the case has taken too long not because the State is unprepared, but because the defence keeps filing applications that interrupt the main hearing. The DPP insisted that justice should not be delayed any further.
The matter came before High Court Judge Emmanuel Baguma, who listened to long arguments from both sides. The defence had applied for a stay of proceedings, meaning they wanted the court to temporarily stop the trial. They also made an oral request for bail for Dr. Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, pending the outcome of a constitutional petition.
Dr. Besigye, together with Lutale and Captain Denis Oola, is charged with treason. The prosecution alleges that the accused plotted to overthrow the government of President Yoweri Museveni. These are very serious charges, which carry heavy punishment if proven in court. The State says the accused were involved in activities that threatened national security.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly held secret meetings in different cities, including Geneva, Nairobi, and Kampala. During these meetings, they are said to have sought funding, weapons, and support for paramilitary activities. The State also alleges that Dr. Besigye conspired with a Kurdish intelligence agent.
One of the most shocking claims by the prosecution is that Dr. Besigye allegedly planned to assassinate the President using drone technology. The State presented this allegation as evidence of how serious and dangerous the alleged plot was. The defence, however, strongly denied these claims and described them as politically motivated and unsupported.
Dr. Besigye’s lawyers, led by Ernest Kalibbala, argued that the trial should not continue until the Constitutional Court decides on an important petition. The petition challenges the fairness of the trial and questions whether Judge Baguma can preside over the case impartially. The defence believes this issue must be settled first.
The constitutional petition argues that Judge Baguma is biased and incompetent. It points out that Besigye and Lutale have already filed a complaint against him before the Judicial Service Commission. Because of this, the defence says it would be unfair for the same judge to continue handling their case while his conduct is under question.
Kalibbala told court that proceeding with the trial before the constitutional issues are resolved would risk injustice. He warned that any decision made could later be challenged and possibly overturned. According to the defence, stopping the trial temporarily would protect the integrity of the judicial process.
The defence also argued that delays in the justice system are common and that this case involves significant public interest. They said the Constitutional Court should be given time to handle the petition properly. In their view, a stay of proceedings would help avoid future legal complications.
On the issue of bail, Kalibbala argued that Dr. Besigye is not a convicted person and deserves to enjoy his constitutional right to liberty. He reminded court that Besigye has previously been charged with treason, granted bail, and always returned to court as required. He said this history shows that Besigye can be trusted.
The defence further argued that the State has repeatedly charged Besigye with treason over the years without securing a conviction. They claimed this amounts to an abuse of court process and harassment. According to them, the continued prosecution is meant to punish Besigye politically rather than seek justice.
Dr. Besigye’s age was also raised as an important factor. The defence noted that he is nearly 70 years old and has a clean criminal record. They even mentioned Uganda’s average life expectancy of about 70 years, arguing that keeping him in custody would be unfair and inhumane.
The proposed sureties for Dr. Besigye included several prominent politicians. These were Bukonjo East MP Harold Tonny Muhindo, Kira Municipality MP Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, and former Leader of Opposition in Parliament, Phillips Wafula Ogutu. The defence said these individuals are responsible and capable of ensuring his return to court.
For Obeid Lutale, the defence proposed his uncle and his wife as sureties. Kalibbala argued that these were close and reliable family members who could guarantee Lutale’s compliance with bail conditions. He insisted that both accused deserved temporary freedom.
The prosecution strongly opposed both the stay application and the bail request. Birivumbuka accused the defence of frustrating the court process and delaying justice. He said the State has been ready to proceed with the trial for months, but the defence keeps shifting focus away from the main case.
Birivumbuka also rejected the argument that the trial should stop because of the constitutional petition. He said the Constitutional Court can handle its matters independently without halting proceedings in the High Court. In his view, stopping the trial would set a bad example for future cases.
On bail, the prosecution argued that Besigye’s proposed sureties were not suitable because they are politically affiliated to him. Birivumbuka said they are “subscribed” to Besigye and may not be independent enough to ensure compliance with bail terms. He also raised fears that Besigye’s influence could interfere with witnesses.
The prosecutor dismissed claims of unnecessary delay, saying many adjournments were caused by the defence itself. He warned that granting bail would only prolong the case and weaken public confidence in the justice system. He urged court to reject all the defence applications.
After listening to both sides from morning until 4:00pm, Judge Emmanuel Baguma adjourned the matter. He said he would deliver his ruling on December 23, 2025. The ruling will be sent via email, and parties were told not to appear physically in court.
Captain Denis Oola, who did not apply for bail or a stay of proceedings, remained in the dock throughout the hearing. Judge Baguma noted that Oola’s bail application would be handled later, after ruling on the current matters. The courtroom was fully packed, showing just how closely the public is following this high-stakes case.
