By Kabuye Ronald
The Criminal Division of the High Court has denied bail to opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajj Obeid Lutale, despite acknowledging that they had fulfilled all the legal requirements for bail.
In a courtroom filled to capacity, Justice Rosette Comfort Kania delivered the ruling, highlighting the court’s responsibility to balance individual freedoms with broader national interests.
“Although the applicants have met all the necessary conditions for bail,” Justice Kania stated, “this court, exercising its discretion, declines to grant bail. The offenses in question are alleged to have occurred across multiple jurisdictions, and the scope and complexity of the investigations require more time and resources than usual. There is also concern that the accused could interfere with the ongoing investigations given their prominence and influence.”
The judge accepted that both Besigye and Lutale had established permanent residences, had no prior incidents of fleeing bail, and had provided credible sureties.
Members of Parliament Ibrahim Ssemujju Nganda, Dr. Nicholas Thadeus Kamara, Tonny Muhindo, and Francis Mwijukye acted as sureties for Dr. Besigye, while Hajj Lutale presented his wife and other close family members.
“These individuals are responsible and capable of ensuring the applicants’ return to court,” argued defence lawyer Erias Lukwago, who led the legal team. He questioned the basis of the denial, saying, “If the court acknowledges they have stable residences, haven’t disrupted investigations, and have no record of absconding, why are they being denied their freedom?”
Lukwago cited Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to apply for bail, and emphasized the importance of the presumption of innocence as stated under Article 28(3)(a) in determining such applications.
The judge also addressed the issue of sureties’ age, dismissing the prosecution’s argument that sureties must be older than the accused. “Requiring sureties to be older than the accused sets a problematic precedent and could deny older individuals access to bail,” she observed.
Nonetheless, the seriousness of the charges, treason and misprision of treason was central to the court’s decision to deny bail.
“These are grave allegations that implicate Uganda’s national security,” the ruling stated. “Even though others facing terrorism-related charges have been granted bail, the treason charges here necessitate greater caution. As investigations are still underway, the court cannot assess the evidence at this stage.”
Earlier, the prosecution had claimed that the accused lacked fixed residences and could potentially meddle in the investigations. However, the court found no substantial proof to support these assertions.
“Allegations of potential interference must be supported with evidence,” the court noted. “In this instance, they were not.”
Still, Justice Kania maintained that given the accused’s influence, the risk of interference, although unproven, could not be ignored.
Dr. Besigye’s case has drawn added scrutiny due to the nature of his arrest. His legal team says he was abducted in Nairobi, Kenya, in what they describe as an illegal rendition. He was later brought before the General Court Martial in Uganda and charged with treason.
Following a significant Supreme Court ruling on January 31, which barred military courts from trying civilians, Besigye’s case was transferred to the High Court’s Criminal Division. Despite the change in jurisdiction, he remains in custody, with all bail applications so far rejected.
“Liberty is a fundamental right,” Justice Kania concluded, “but it must be balanced against the country’s security concerns. Bail is not a right—it lies within the court’s discretion.”
Dr. Besigye, a veteran opposition figure and four-time presidential contender, has now been in detention for over 120 days without trial. His legal team announced their intention to appeal the ruling.
Speaking to journalists outside the courthouse, Lukwago expressed frustration but remained resolute. “We are disappointed, but not discouraged. It is unjust to deny a citizen rights that are constitutionally granted. This decision is not rooted in legal reasoning—it is politically motivated. Our struggle for justice continues.”
