Fresh doubts have emerged over the scheduled start of Dr Kizza Besigye’s treason trial after his lawyers accused prison authorities of failing to provide the facilities needed to prepare his defence.
Lawyers for Dr Besigye and his co-accused, Mr Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya, raised the complaint in a letter to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court Criminal Division.
They said they had not received confirmation that court-ordered arrangements for consultations at Luzira Prison had been implemented. The trial is scheduled to start on June 11.
The complaint comes days after the High Court dismissed an application by Dr Besigye and Lutale. They had sought a Constitutional Court interpretation on whether they had received enough time and facilities to prepare their defence.
Lawyers cite lack of prison access
In the June 5 letter, M/s Lukwago & Co Advocates said Justice Emmanuel Baguma had directed prison authorities to ease access to the accused persons.
According to the lawyers, the judge ordered access during weekends and public holidays. He also directed that prison authorities provide conditions that support effective lawyer-client consultations.
However, the defence said the arrangements had not been put in place.
“To date, we have not received any notification that such a letter has been written to or that permission was granted by the prison authorities,” the lawyers wrote.
They said one of their co-counsel, Bayrn Turinawe, went to Luzira Prison on June 4 with flash drives and a laptop. Prison officers at the gate denied him entry with the items.
The lawyers said the incident suggests that the court-directed communication may not have been sent. They also said prison authorities may not have granted the requested permissions.
Defence seeks private consultation room
The defence warned that the restrictions could affect preparations in a serious criminal case.
In their letter, the lawyers asked for a dedicated interview room without state officers. They said the room should be large enough to accommodate 15 to 20 lawyers and assistants.
They argued that such an arrangement would protect confidentiality and legal privilege during consultations.
The lawyers also requested unrestricted access to the prison facility between 8am and 6pm. They said this would allow them to hold lengthy consultations, review evidence, identify possible witnesses and prepare for trial.
They further asked to carry laptops, mobile phones, headphones, projectors, flash drives and other case materials into the prison. They also requested access to a stable and secure internet connection.
In addition, the defence sought permission to involve an information technology expert and a forensic examiner of their choice.
“Access to the facility with all case files, flash drives, notebooks, pens, statute books in hard and soft copy is necessary for effective consultations,” the lawyers said.
Court had rejected constitutional referral
The latest complaint adds to continuing friction over trial preparations.
Previously, Justice Baguma rejected efforts by Dr Besigye and Lutale to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. They wanted the court to determine whether the time granted for trial preparation was sufficient under Article 28 of the Uganda Constitution.
Justice Baguma ruled that the issues raised did not amount to substantial constitutional questions requiring referral.
He maintained earlier directions for the parties to proceed with the preliminary hearing and trial schedule.
Prosecution alleges plot to overthrow government
The prosecution alleges that Dr Besigye, Mr Lutale and Uganda People’s Defence Forces officer Denis Oola took part in meetings in Uganda and abroad between 2023 and 2024.
Prosecutors claim the meetings formed part of a plot to overthrow the government.
The prosecution is expected to call several witnesses, including former Chief of Military Intelligence Maj Gen James Birungi.
The latest defence letter is likely to renew debate over whether the accused persons have received adequate facilities to prepare for trial.
For now, the case remains set for hearing. However, the defence maintains that key consultation arrangements have not been provided.
That has left fresh questions over whether the long-awaited treason trial will begin as planned or face another delay.
