No one wants to stay in prison - Besigye responds to Museveni as treason trial begins

The High Court on Monday began hearing the treason case against opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, with Besigye rejecting President Yoweri Museveni's claim that he has deliberately delayed the trial.

The proceedings before Justice Emmanuel Baguma opened with Besigye and Lutale being brought to court from Luzira Prison. 

Besigye appeared in the dock in handcuffs which is typically against court practice. The judge ordered prison officers to remove them so he could address the court.

Besigye told the court he had been brought under duress before raising concerns about his lack of legal representation.

He said his lead lawyer, Erias Lukwago, had been arrested, while Kenyan lawyer Martha Karua had been deported, leaving his defence team unable to effectively represent him.

The former Forum for Democratic Change president also sought to respond to comments made by Museveni during a televised national address on Saturday, July 4. In that address, the President accused Besigye of frustrating his own trial since his arrest in November 2024.

"Take the case of Dr Besigye. He was arrested on November 17, 2024. It has been almost two years now. All this time, however, he's been refusing trial; misusing the legal system," Museveni said.

The President questioned why Besigye, whom he described as a democrat and human rights activist, had declined to proceed with the trial.

"Why would this democrat and human rights fighter spend so many calories on refusing to come for trial where he has an opportunity to prove his innocence and expose the undemocratic behaviour and dictatorship of Museveni and his family?" Museveni asked.

He also criticised what he described as delays within the justice system.

"Why should the legal system for so long allow an accused person to refuse to be tried? Is that a good system?" he said.

Responding in court, Besigye denied delaying the proceedings and argued that the delays stemmed from unresolved issues affecting his legal representation.

He noted that on July 2nd he filed an application number 248 seeking remedies relating to their representation, which the court did not respond to.

"The following day July 4th, Mr Museveni addressed the country touching on the matters before this case."

Besigye said he and Lutale had been unable to adequately prepare for trial because they had not been allowed sufficient access to their lawyers while in prison.

"Fair hearing requires us to have representation through lawyers of our case. But that belief we have in that right is clearly in question. We have not been allowed up to today to sit with our lawyers in Luzira to get disclosure of evidence given to them."

He added that they had also failed to obtain records of earlier court proceedings.

"We have requested for the record of proceedings of the main case and haven't gotten any."

Besigye told the court that once those issues were resolved, the defence would be ready to proceed.

"Our request is to have the issue of representation resolved. Once that is done we shall have access to the disclosure. Hopefully by then we shall have had a record of proceedings and we shall be ready for trial. No body wants to stay in prison."

He then sought permission to address Museveni's remarks, arguing that they directly affected the case before court.

"And this is why the address of Mr Museveni on Saturday is critical to this case because he addressed the whole nation on our trial. I now wish to address this court on the statement of Mr Museveni which touches on the issue of fair hearing."

Justice Baguma declined the request.

"That will not happen. Today is the day of the case hearing. I want to hear the challenges you are facing regarding legal representation," the judge said.

Besigye insisted the President's comments formed part of those challenges.

"Precisely, this is one the challenges because the statements that were made touch on this hearing," he replied.

Justice Baguma, however, maintained his position.

"No, we cannot go to that address," the judge ruled before directing the hearing to continue on the issue of legal representation.