The High Court has ordered Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo to appear for cross-examination on April 24, following a successful application by defense lawyers representing opposition figure Kizza Besigye and his co-accused.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Emmanuel Baguma ruled that the defense be allowed to test the credibility of affidavits sworn by Kyomuhendo, stating that justice required the deponent to be subjected to questioning in court.
“It is not in dispute that the state has not opposed the cross-examining of the deponent,” Justice Baguma said. “It is therefore my view that, in the interest of justice, the accused persons’ lawyers should cross-examine the said Joseph Kyomuhendo.”
The ruling follows objections raised by the defense team, including lawyers Fredrick Mpanga, Erias Lukwago, and Martha Karua, who argued that the affidavits contained claims that needed to be verified under oath.
“We are interested in testing the oath of the attorney and the truth in it,” Mpanga told court.
Earlier in the day, proceedings were delayed for over an hour as state prosecutors failed to appear at the scheduled time, prompting sharp criticism from the bench and defense lawyers.
The accused—Besigye, Hajj Obeid Lutale, and Capt Ola Oya—had been delivered to court under heavy security shortly after midday, despite the session being scheduled for 11:00 a.m.
Lukwago criticised the prosecution’s absence, saying, “Court cannot act on the whims of the state. If they don’t appear, there is always a sanction.”
The defense team also raised strong objections to a prosecution application seeking to conceal the identities of certain witnesses, arguing that such a move would violate the accused persons’ non-derogable rights to a fair trial.
“Our clients are uncomfortable with the application to conceal witnesses,” Lukwago said. “The withholding of witness identities violates their constitutional rights.”
In response, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko apologised for the delay, attributing it to the late filing of defense submissions.
“My Lord, the prosecution humbly apologises for the delay caused to the court,” Jatiko said. “We were preparing a rejoinder after receiving the respondents’ submissions late last night.”
However, Karua dismissed the explanation, stating, “From where we stand, it doesn’t sound like an apology. The prosecution assumes court will wait and not sanction them.”
Justice Baguma described the prosecution’s conduct as “improper” but accepted the apology and declined to award costs to the defense for the day.
“This court cannot be held at ransom,” the judge said. “The prosecution should have had the courtesy to inform court of their delay.”
The court also questioned prison authorities over the late production of the accused, with the judge asking why they had been brought in after midday for a morning session.
Despite calls from the defense to dismiss the prosecution’s application due to their absence, the judge granted a final adjournment in the interest of justice.
The matter was adjourned to April 7 for further proceedings, including a ruling on the application to conceal witnesses.
Meanwhile, the scheduled cross-examination of Kyomuhendo is expected to play a pivotal role in determining the credibility of the state’s evidence in the case.
“We are seeking to test whether what is stated in the affidavits is true,” Mpanga said. “Fair trial rights cannot be outweighed by speculative concerns.”
The case continues to draw attention as legal teams clash over due process, disclosure of evidence, and the balance between witness protection and the rights of the accused.
