The High Court in Kampala has given opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused Hajj Obeid Lutale two weeks to decide whether they will accept state-appointed lawyers or choose private legal representatives of their own preference in the ongoing treason case. The High Court has appointed three state lawyers to represent Dr. Kizza Besigye […]
The High Court in Kampala has given opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused Hajj Obeid Lutale two weeks to decide whether they will accept state-appointed lawyers or choose private legal representatives of their own preference in the ongoing treason case.
The High Court has appointed three state lawyers to represent Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajj Obeid Lutale, in their ongoing treason trial. And directed them to furnish the court with their CV’s.
The appointed advocates are Namawejje Sliver, Sarah Awelo and Serwambala Julius.
The court also gave the accused two weeks to decide whether to retain the appointed lawyers or choose alternative counsel from the over 700 advocates available under the state brief scheme.
The decision was made by Justice Emmanuel Baguma after the accused appeared before court following the state’s disclosure of evidence it intends to rely on during the trial.
State prosecutors led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Thomas Jatiko and Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka had earlier served Besigye and Lutale with bundles of documents and electronic evidence, including flash disks containing the prosecution disclosures.
During the court session, Justice Baguma reminded the accused that they had earlier been provided with a list of 786 advocates available under the state brief arrangement to enable them select legal representation.
“Since you received the evidence, let us proceed to the next stage. I earlier directed that, should you maintain a difficulty with legal representation, you be furnished with the list of 786 advocates on state brief, from which you were to make your selection. Have you made your choice?” the judge asked.
However, Dr. Besigye told court that he had only received the extensive list at about 6:00pm the previous day and needed guidance on how to make an informed choice.
Besigye argued that the list only contained the advocates’ names, years of enrolment, areas of practice and telephone contacts, but did not provide information about their experience or areas of competence.
He said the complexity of the case required lawyers with specific expertise, especially given the nature of the evidence expected to be presented by the state.
“My Lord, the charges we face are grave and complex, spanning events said to have occurred across four countries. Much of the evidence confronting us is technical and electronic in nature,” Besigye told court.
He asked the court to provide a way through which he and Lutale could understand the professional backgrounds and competencies of the listed lawyers before making their selection.
Besigye further maintained that the defence team they had previously chosen remained their preferred lawyers, saying they had full confidence in their competence.
He told court that their earlier legal team was still available to represent them once concerns regarding the security and circumstances surrounding their lawyers were resolved.
“The legal team we had is one in whose competence we placed full confidence, and which remains available to represent us in this matter once the concerns touching upon its members’ security have been resolved,” Besigye said.
He referred to a pending application before the High Court, Application No. 248, which he said directly relates to issues surrounding their legal representation.
The former presidential candidate also questioned the financial burden of state-funded lawyers, arguing that he and Lutale were willing and able to meet the costs of lawyers of their own choice.
“It would be an injustice to the people of Uganda to bear the cost of counsel on our behalf when we are able and willing to meet the requirements of counsel of our own choosing,” Besigye said.
The court’s directive comes amid a dispute between the accused and the state over legal representation, with Besigye’s supporters accusing authorities of frustrating access to his preferred lawyers.
Besigye’s political camp has previously claimed that some members of his legal team faced intimidation, deportation and other challenges, allegations that have not been determined by court.
The prosecution, however, has proceeded with the case, arguing that the accused must have legal representation to allow the trial process to move forward.
Meanwhile, Besigye, Lutale and Capt. Denis Oola remain on remand after court extended their detention until July 29, 2026.
The three are accused of offences related to treason, charges they deny.
