Jailed veteran opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused
High Court judge Emmanuel Baguma has, for the second time, declined to recuse himself from hearing the treason charges against jailed veteran opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye, arguing that there was no valid reason given by the four-time presidential contender to justify his withdrawal from the proceedings.
“I am sorry for the delay. I have also been waiting because the Luzira people have delayed to come,” Justice Baguma told a fully-packed courtroom on Wednesday after taking his bench at around 12:15 pm.
Dr Besigye, together with his co-accused, Hajj Obeid Lutale and Capt Denis Oola, is charged with three counts of treason and misprision of treason allegedly committed on February 21, 2025.
While delivering his ruling, the judge noted that the trio was committed to the High Court by Nakawa Magistrate’s Court on May 29, 2025, and the case was later allocated to the Criminal Division for trial through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) on June 27, 2025.
Justice Baguma said he had carefully examined the lower court record and found no evidence that the case was ever forwarded to the International Crimes Division (ICD) as claimed by the applicants.
“I have scrutinised the entire lower court record and the history of this matter even before committal. On May 29, 2025, the accused were committed to the High Court for trial. In my view, the Criminal Division is a division of the High Court and therefore, has jurisdiction to handle this case,” he said.
Justice Baguma noted that Dr Besigye and his co-accused had previously filed applications for bail and revision within the same Criminal Division, confirming their recognition of the court’s authority.
“The turnaround by the accused to now claim that the file was hijacked from the ICD appears to be a deliberate move whose intention is not known,” he said.
On the request for him to step aside, Justice Baguma said the allegations of bias and incompetence were unfounded.
“The ruling on mandatory bail was determined on its own merit. The denial of bail at one stage does not mean that the judge is biased or will never grant bail in the future,” he said.
He added that dissatisfaction with a court’s decision cannot be used to justify claims of bias.
“It is not proper for parties to use decisions that are not in their favour to allege bias against a judge. The law provides avenues for dissatisfied parties to appeal,” Justice Baguma ruled.
Justice Baguma further explained that the filing of a complaint against him before the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) was not a legal bar to his continued handling of the case.
“This court is a temple of justice which upholds the principles of fair trial and natural justice. The filing of a complaint seeking the removal of a judge from office is not a bar to him continuing to hear a case,” he ruled.
He dismissed the application for his recusal and the request to transfer the case, ordering that the matter be fixed for plea-taking.
However, shortly after the court’s ruling, Dr Besigye, through his lawyers led by Ernest Kalibbala, asked the court to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court to determine if it is proper for Justice Baguma to continue presiding over the case when there is a pending complaint seeking his removal from the Office of a judge pending before the Judicial Service Commission.
In his response, the Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka argued that before any court refers any matter for Constitutional reference, it must be satisfied that there is a question of law that must be interpreted.
“Any matter disguised as a violation of human rights is not a matter that this court can refer for interpretation. The court has been extremely fair to the applicants. The premise of the application is that, according to the alleged complaint to the JSC, there is no copy of that complaint, and even then, it is the duty of the JSC to serve it to the Judicial officer and determine it,” Mr Birivumbuka said.
He further submitted that the complaint had not yet been brought to the attention of the prosecution and therefore, there is no act of the judicial officer so far that requires Constitutional interpretation.
But Mr Kalibala told the court that the matters raised touching on the impartiality of the court are fundamental questions of Constitutional interpretation, which, among other things, will establish whether this is an impartial and independent court as per Article 28 of the Constitution.
“The state has responded to a complaint before the JSC, and they are unhappy that they have not been served with the same. The complaint is not before the prosecution, and they cannot even deny their existence, but the ruling of the court confirms it exists,” Mr Kalibbala said.