Recent developments in the trial of opposition politician Dr. Kizza Besigye have reignited debate about the state of constitutional governance, the rule of law and access to justice in Uganda.
For many Ugandans, the handling of the case has raised difficult questions about whether constitutional safeguards are being fully respected. These concerns, whether ultimately upheld or rejected by the courts, deserve careful consideration because public confidence in the justice system depends on transparency, fairness and adherence to the law.
The Constitution guarantees every person the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial court. It also provides for legal representation, access to court processes and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. When questions arise about these rights, they should be addressed openly through lawful judicial processes.
Several issues have been raised by observers and legal commentators regarding the case. Among them are questions about the circumstances surrounding Dr. Besigye’s arrest outside Uganda and whether established extradition procedures were followed.
Others have questioned the lengthy period during which he faced proceedings before the military court despite previous Constitutional Court and Supreme Court decisions on the trial of civilians by military tribunals.
Concerns have also been expressed about repeated denial of bail applications, access to prosecution documents, delays in commencing trial proceedings, and requests for some witnesses to testify remotely under special arrangements.
Critics argue that such matters should be handled in a way that strengthens, rather than weakens, confidence in the administration of justice.
There have also been concerns regarding legal representation. Some observers have questioned restrictions that affected members of the defence team and whether the accused was able to freely exercise the constitutional right to counsel of his choice.
Others have argued that preliminary applications relating to fair trial rights should have been determined before the substantive hearing proceeds.
Equally troubling are public statements by some government officials that, in the view of critics, appeared to prejudge the outcome of the case before the courts had reached a final verdict. In any democratic society governed by the rule of law, judicial decisions should be left to the courts rather than influenced by public pronouncements.
The strength of any justice system lies not only in punishing wrongdoing but also in ensuring that every accused person receives a fair, impartial and transparent hearing. Courts must remain places where justice is seen to be done, regardless of the identity or political affiliation of those appearing before them.
As Uganda continues to build its democratic institutions, there is need for all state actors to respect constitutional principles, judicial independence and due process. Upholding these values is essential for maintaining public trust and preserving the rule of law.
The concerns surrounding this case should serve as an opportunity for reflection on how Uganda’s justice system can continue to strengthen constitutional governance and guarantee equal justice for all.
UGANDA CRY UGANDA CRYING , THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF ACCESSING JUSTICE IN COURT ARE ALL BROKEN
Is this for God and My Country , the Land of Freedom.
Besigye corrupses in the court dock amidist abuse of justice and overthrow of the Constitutional rule .
This is too horrible and terrible for constitutional governance. Banya-Kigezi Banya- Uganda , may God intervene.
The Courts of Laws to be temple of justice now turns into temple of injustice .
- How can you arrest aman by breach of the extradition treaty in another country without following the law?
- How could you take Dr. KB to be tried by military court spending there over six month even when the Constitutional Court and supreme Court ruled against trying civilians in military courts??
- Why could the court after committal to High Court criminal division the defendants seeks for Court bail both ordinary bail and mandatory bail you deny the constitutional right.??
- Why at first deny the legal right to access Court documents by the plaint to defendant disclosure?
- Why could prosecution first delay the case to commense by applying for none appearance of witnesses by option that they be cross examined in secret via zoom?
- Why could the judge dismiss the application for mandatory bail the third time was made ? And application was happily dismissed by the judge even when the man from Rwakabengo was even very ill?
- Why would the state senior top official make a death sentence verdict that RtD. Col. was to be hanged in Gulu even before finalising the court process?
- Why could the state at first deny the suspect’s lead senior lawyer from Kenya not to be accepted in Uganda and later after be deported back?
- How could the state consider it to be reasonable and just to fully remove the suspect’s lawyers and force them to select from the state lawyers denying the right of representation by advocate of the suspect’s choice ?
- Why could court refuse to first resolve two miscellaneous applications concerning about right of the suspect including fair legal representation before commensing the court hearing of main suit?
Is that how the rule of law works in Uganda if it is there?
The cry in the hearts of many is there, hearts are heavy and breeding? When will this come to an end. Uganda cry.
Associate of Constitutional Governance & Justice for All.
The author, Dr. Joseph Tindyebwa, is a Minister of the Gospel and Senior Lecturer of Governance and Public Management at Kampala International University. The views expressed are his own.
