There was a heated exchange at the General Court Martial in Makindye as retired Colonel Dr. Kizza Besigye and Abeid Lutaale appeared in court to face charges related to unlawful possession of ammunition and offenses against security.
The court proceedings began at 12:30 pm. Besigye’s lawyer, Erias Lukwago, informed the court that Besigye had instructed Kenyan lawyer Martha Karua to lead his defense.
However, Karua, who had arrived in the country on Sunday, had not yet received a practicing license from the Uganda Law Council.
Lukwago explained that they had met with Lady Justice Irene Mulyagonja, the Chairperson of the Law Council, earlier that morning.
The council had agreed to address the issue expeditiously, but a full council meeting was required to make a final decision.
Lukwago added that Karua, though not yet officially on record, was coordinating with other lawyers from countries such as Kenya, Nigeria, Tanzania, and other Pan-African legal professionals to support Besigye’s defense.
Unfortunately, Karua had not yet had an opportunity to meet with Besigye and Lutaale.
Amid proceedings, Lukwago requested a 30-minute break to consult with his clients, but Prosecutor Colonel Raphael Mugisha interjected, wanting to address the court.
Besigye’s lawyer, Eron Kiiza, blocked Mugisha from speaking, arguing that the defense should be allowed to finish their submissions before the prosecution made any response.
Kiiza also highlighted that out of the 35 defense lawyers present, only four had provided practicing certificates, which was a requirement under Regulation 61 of the UPDF Act.
Lukwago, Kiiza, Nalukoola, and Matsiko were the only lawyers who had complied. Mugisha argued that some of the defense lawyers had listed their addresses as “UPDF Makindye,” making it seem as if their documents were endorsed by the court, which he claimed was misleading.
Lukwago responded that the lawyers represented law firms, and he emphasized that the issue was a minor technicality that did not affect Besigye’s right to a fair trial.
He argued that the Constitution guarantees the right to choose legal representation, and the defense should not be hindered by such technicalities.
The prosecutor continued to insist that the majority of defense lawyers had failed to provide their practicing certificates and should not be allowed to represent Besigye.
Kiiza countered by citing Article 28 of the Constitution, which guarantees a fair hearing, and argued that Besigye had the right to choose his lawyers, even if it meant firing them during the proceedings.
Ernest Kalibala, another defense lawyer, argued that the prosecutors were focusing on a technicality that should not hinder the delivery of justice.
He emphasized that the lawyers were legitimate and that the issue could be easily resolved administratively.
Judge Advocate Brigadier Richard Tukacungurwa expressed his frustration with the lack of preparedness, stating that the lawyers should have ensured all necessary documentation was in order.
He pointed out that, like the prosecution, the defense had studied law for five years, and failure to provide practicing certificates should not be tolerated.
He added that the defense could challenge the decision in the Constitutional Court if they wished.
After this exchange, the court allowed a 30-minute break for the defense team to consult with their clients.
Lukwago had earlier stated that he had been denied access to Besigye at Luzira Prison and had not been able to meet with him for proper instructions.
The defense team was permitted to use a designated room at the court for their discussions.
Prominent figures in the courtroom included Winnie Byanyima, Besigye’s wife, and opposition politicians Mathias Mpuuga, Betty Akol Ssemujju Nganda, Roland Kaginda, Allan Ssewanyana, Wafula Ogutu, and Ingrid Turinawe, among others.
English 