The treason trial of Dr Kizza Besigye and co-accused Obeid Lutale was delayed by more than an hour with the judge questioning why the duo had been brought in late.
The session had been scheduled for 11am but was only starting at 12.30pm
Justice Emmanuel Baguma directed the query at Uganda Prisons officials, as proceedings opened with visible frustration over the delay.
Defence lawyer Erias Lukwago told court that the matter had previously been fixed by consent, with clear directions issued for the prosecution to serve the accused persons. He said service had been effected in court and the matter adjourned for further management.
However, Lukwago argued that the prosecution had failed to appear as required, urging court to dismiss the application.
“The matter was fixed today by consent and directions were made that prosecution should serve the accused persons that day. We witnessed the service and court directed we return today. But on their own volition they have not appeared,” Lukwago said.
He added that the application had come up for further management and required the presence of the state, questioning whether prosecutors had lost interest in the case.
“It’s not their liberty when to turn up or not. Court cannot act on the whims of the state. If they don’t appear, there is always a sanction. It’s a serious matter,” he said.
Another defence lawyer, David Mpanga, asked court to allow a brief extension, noting that even with possible traffic delays, the prosecution was still absent.
“We urge that prison authorities be given an extra one hour. Even if there was delay by traffic, they are not yet here. We pray that the application is considered abandoned and struck out,” Mpanga submitted.
In a brief ruling, the judge agreed that the prosecution had failed to appear in time, noting that by 12:30pm, the court was already one and a half hours behind schedule.
“It’s unfortunate that the prosecution is nowhere to be seen. It is now 30 minutes past midday,” the judge said.
The court, however, stopped short of striking out the application, instead granting what it described as a final adjournment in the interest of justice.
“The matter was meant to come up for mention today. Alive to the history of this case, I will give this application a last adjournment for court to take action,” the judge ruled, adjourning the case to the 7th.
Shortly after the ruling, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko appeared in court and apologised for the delay.
“My Lord, the prosecution humbly apologises for the delay caused to court. This case was fixed for 11am and we apologise to court and colleagues,” Jatiko said.
He attributed the delay to late filing of responses by the defence, saying the prosecution only received them the previous night and had been preparing a rejoinder.
“We only discovered at night the reply from the respondents as opposed to the expected March 26. We were working around the clock for a rejoinder. We do not wish to waste court’s time,” he added.
The explanation was strongly contested by the defence.
Activist Ingrid Turinawe argued that the court had already made its decision and should focus on reprimanding the prosecution, including awarding costs for the day.
“The accused are incurring costs. Our senior counsel Martha Karua boards a plane and we drive to pick her from the airport. The court needs to reprimand the state, starting with costs,” Turinawe said.
Lukwago dismissed the prosecution’s explanation as misleading.
“The least court can do is not entertain a lie. The appearance and filing are not connected at all. That’s the worst lie court can accept from the DPP,” he said, adding that defence filings often face delays within Luzira prison.
State attorney Birivumbuka defended the prosecution, saying efforts had been made to ensure an expeditious hearing, including preparing a rejoinder.
“We have been working for expeditious hearing. That is why we deemed it fit to file a rejoinder to avoid further waste of time,” he said.
When the judge inquired whether the rejoinder had been uploaded onto the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECMIS), the prosecution said the process was underway, with a hard copy already brought to court.
On the issue of costs, the state argued that the session had only been for mention and not a substantive hearing, making it unfair to penalise the prosecution.
“We ask court to guide on that issue,” Birivumbuka said.
The judge did not immediately rule on the request for costs, leaving the matter to proceed on the next adjourned date.
