The legal team representing opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye has cited extensive human rights laws and precedents in their latest bid to challenge his continued detention and trial.
This follows Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court’s decision to stay proceedings in Besigye’s incitement to violence case for 60 days, citing his deteriorating health condition.
Speaking after the ruling, Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, who leads Besigye’s defense team, criticized the court’s approach, arguing that the Chief Magistrate’s Court had jurisdiction to issue a more substantive order rather than merely postponing the case.
“This is the ruling of the Human Rights and Procedures Council on the enforcement of rights and freedoms by the Magistrate’s Court. The Magistrate’s Court indeed has the jurisdiction to proceed in Penal Case No. 624 of 2022.We expected the court to issue clear orders regarding the cessation of the continued unlawful detention of Dr. Kizza Besigye and direct the relevant authorities to cease any further violation of his rights.” Lukwago asserted.
Lukwago and his team have based their legal arguments on multiple legislative frameworks, including the 1995 Constitution of Uganda, the Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2019, and the Judicature Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms Enforcement Procedures, Instrument No. 21 of 2019.
Lukwago explained : “As per Article 50 of the Constitution, any person who claims that a fundamental or other right or freedom guaranteed under this Constitution has been infringed or threatened is entitled to apply to a competent court for redress, which may include compensation. The law is very clear any individual, not just the victim, has the right to challenge the violation of human rights.”
He further cited the case of Bukenya Church Ambrose v. Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2011), which reaffirmed that magistrates’ courts and the High Court share jurisdiction in matters concerning human rights enforcement.
“The Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2019 explicitly states that human rights can be enforced by both the High Court and a magistrate’s court, which are recognized as competent courts under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, the failure of the court to act decisively in this matter raises serious concerns.” Lukwago said
The Court’s Position and Lukwago’s Criticism
Although the Chief Magistrate’s Court dismissed the defense’s application for redress, it invoked its inherent powers under Section 98 of the Judicature Act to stay proceedings, acknowledging that Besigye’s health rendered him unfit to stand trial at the moment.
“The court recognizes that Dr. Kizza Besigye, given his current health condition, is unstable and therefore unfit to stand trial at this moment, a stay of these proceedings is the most logical remedy to allow him to restore his health to normalcy.” ruled Magistrate Winnie Nankya
However, Lukwago was unimpressed, calling the ruling a contradiction that failed to provide meaningful relief for his client.
“This ruling is paradoxical, on one hand, the magistrate acknowledges that Dr. Besigye is in a dire state of health and cannot stand trial, yet she makes no orders for his medical intervention. The logical next step after such recognition should be to direct that he be taken to a well-equipped facility for proper treatment. Instead, she simply stays the proceedings for 60 days and extends his bail, bail that he cannot enjoy because he remains under state control.” he argued.
Lukwago also took issue with the prison authorities’ failure to produce Besigye in court, despite a prior order compelling them to do so.
“The last time we appeared here, the order was very clear: Prisons authorities were commanded to produce Dr. Besigye today, the 20th of February. We show up in court, and he is nowhere to be seen. When the question was put to a prison warder, they simply said, ‘No, he is not here.’ The magistrate did not even inquire why her own order had been flouted. She just said she would try to find out later. That is shocking” he said
Lukwago emphasized that under Section 9 of the Human Rights Enforcement Act, courts are empowered to issue appropriate orders, including compensation and restitution for victims of human rights violations.
“The competent court may, in addition to the orders referred to, order restitution of the victim to the original situation before the violation of their rights and freedoms. Rehabilitation, including medical and psychological care, must also be considered.” he added
The defense team now plans to escalate the matter to the High Court, where they expect a more decisive ruling.
“We are not giving up. Yesterday, the High Court asked us to write today requesting a date for the ruling. We will be knocking on Justice Singiza’s door, asking when the ruling will be delivered. He indicated that it would not be beyond the 25th of February. But the bigger question remains, what happens to Dr. Besigye’s life and liberties between now and then?” he questioned
Lukwago concluded by stating that the legal team is actively exploring other options within the law to ensure justice for Besigye.
“As they try to close one door, we shall open another. We are committed to ensuring that the rule of law and the Constitution still mean something in this country.”he stated
