A courtroom exchange at Nakawa Magistrates Court on Friday morning saw state prosecutor Richard Birivumbuka argue for a closed-door hearing, citing security concerns for an investigative officer, a request that met stiff resistance from the defense team.
The session, presided over by Chief Magistrate Esther Nyadoi revolved around the cross-examination of Benedict Odiek , an investigating officer involved in an ongoing case against opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye.
The court had previously granted an application by the defense to cross-examine Odiek in its last sitting.
However, when the matter came up for hearing, Birivumbuka, the state prosecutor , sought to have the cross-examination conducted in chambers, excluding the press and public.
He argued that Odiek faced imminent threats and public attacks, pointing to songs being sung in the courtroom as evidence of intimidation.
“Appearing in court jeopardizes his security and compromises the integrity of the investigation,” Birivumbuka stated, emphasizing the need for the court to shield the officer and protect the probe.
The defense team, led by lawyers Frederick Mpanga and Elias Lukwago, strongly objected to the request, terming it an abuse of the court process.
Mpanga dismissed Birivumbuka’s claims, noting that similar arguments had been dismissed by the Constitutional Court.
He further questioned the basis of the alleged threats, arguing that songs sung in court whenever Besigye appears were not targeted threats.
“It is strange to claim that singing in court is a form of intimidation when it has happened routinely. Besides, there is doubt that the witness himself expressed such fears.”
The defense lawyers also pointed out that Odiek’s identity had already been made public, rendering the state's attempt to conceal his details unnecessary.
“The state has already exposed the officer by providing his full details, including his picture,” Mpanga added.
Elias Lukwago the lead counsel for Dr. Kizza Besigye criticized the state's approach, arguing that if there were genuine concerns, the prosecution should have filed a formal application supported by written evidence and an affidavit.
“The state ought to have followed due process instead of making oral arguments without substantive proof,” he argued.
He further contended that the case had been conducted in open court from the beginning, including when it was before the Court Martial, which had allowed public attendance.
“If the Court Martial permitted public participation, why should this court now exclude the public?” he questioned.
Lukwago asked the court to dismiss the state’s application in its entirety, reiterating that there was no valid justification for excluding the press and the public.
Despite the defense submission, Birivumbuka insisted on having the public locked out stating that, "They'll have a right to appear when the substantive trial of this matter is on."