Besigye petitions Constitutional Court as Judge Baguma refuses to recuse self

Lawyers representing opposition leader Col Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Kamulegeya Lutale, have sought a reference to the Constitutional Court after High Court Judge Emmanuel Baguma declined to recuse himself from the trial. 

The defence team is seeking the higher court’s guidance on whether Justice Baguma can carry on with the case in which he has been accused of bias and incompetence by the accused person.

On wednesday, Justice Baguma delivered a defiant ruling in which he rejected the recusal application as requested by Dr Besigye.

Besigye had earlier, last week made an impassioned address accusing the judge of gross incompetence and bias. Dr Besigye and Mr Lutale have been held in detention for over 330 to date.

Judicial Rationale for Continuation

In his ruling, Justice Baguma maintained that the proceedings would remain under the High Court’s Criminal Division, a jurisdiction he noted the accused had previously accepted by filing successive bail applications. 

Addressing the accusation of bias, which stemmed from a previous denial of mandatory bail, the Judge asserted that such decisions are made purely on legal merit and do not indicate prejudice.

"It is my considered view that the denial of mandatory bail was considered on its own merit based on the facts and on the law," Justice Baguma stated. 

He further dismissed the notion that a judge's temporary denial of bail proved bias, adding: “Denial of bail does not prove that the judge is biased or incompetent.” 

He concluded that the pendency of a formal complaint against a judicial officer is not a bar to the case proceeding, nor can it be used as grounds for recusal.

Accusations and Illegal Detention Claims

Following Justice Baguma's refusal to recuse himself, the defence team immediately sought a constitutional court reference. 

Citing Article 28 (1) and Article 44(c) of the constitution, which guarantee the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial court, the lawyers argued that a fundamental issue of constitutional interpretation had arisen.

The question the lawyers seek to put before the Constitutional Court is whether a court presided over by a judicial officer, against whom the accused person has filed a complaint seeking their removal from office, can still be deemed "an independent and impartial court" within the plain meaning of the Constitution. 

Given that the complaint filed with the JSC seeks the judge’s most severe outcome—his removal from office—the defence argues that the judge is now fundamentally impaired from establishing justice in the matter.