By Spy Uganda
Mounting tensions in the treason case against Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya have shifted the spotlight away from the accused and onto the judiciary itself, as lawyers accuse Nakawa Chief Magistrate Christine Nantege of undermining due process and justice.
What began as a routine hearing on a state application to seize the accused’s mobile phones turned into a dramatic showdown Thursday, with the defense team, led by Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, sharply criticizing the magistrate’s handling of the high-profile case.
“Our concern is no longer just about the charges. It is about the conduct of court,” Lukwago told journalists. “We are dealing with a matter where justice is not only being delayed — it is being denied, and the judiciary must be held to account.”
The defense says the accused have been in detention since November 2024, far beyond the 180-day constitutional limit for pre-trial remand without committal. Yet, the magistrate has allegedly failed to address even a basic computation of this period — a step required before bail can be considered.
“Section 76 of the Magistrate Courts Act is clear — once an accused person clocks 180 days on remand, the only business court can conduct is to hear a bail application,” Lukwago emphasized. “Instead, we see the state pushing for seizure of private property while bail rights are ignored.”
The situation, he added, has bred distrust in the court’s independence, prompting a formal demand for Magistrate Nantege’s recusal and a separate petition to the Judicial Service Commission over her conduct.
This sharp rebuke underscores what legal experts are calling a growing crisis of confidence in Uganda’s lower courts, especially in politically sensitive cases. Analysts argue that the court’s failure to enforce constitutional safeguards not only hurts the accused but also casts a shadow over the integrity of the justice system.
Besigye and Lutale were initially detained and charged before a military tribunal, before a Supreme Court ruling forced their case into civilian court. Many saw this as a victory for civilian oversight — but the defense now claims little has changed.
“We left the military court expecting justice — but we’ve found the same mindset dressed in civilian robes,” Lukwago said.
At the heart of the issue is not just a legal technicality, but what the defense calls a dangerous precedent: “If courts can bend the rules in a case like this, what protection remains for the ordinary Ugandan?” one member of the legal team asked.
With the next court date set for June 26, all eyes are on how the judiciary responds — not just to the charges against Besigye and Lutale, but to the larger questions now hanging over the bench.
Meanwhile, the ruling on recusal has been scheduled for June 26, 2025.
