Veteran opposition politician Kizza Besigye’s lawyers are preparing to seek Constitutional Court intervention over what they describe as an unreasonably fast-tracked trial schedule, despite their client having spent more than 18 months in detention.
The concern emerged on Monday during proceedings before Justice Emmanuel Baguma, who directed that court reconvene on June 8 for the final pre-hearing session and oath-taking of assessors, before the hearing proper begins on July 11 with the presentation of prosecution witnesses.
While such scheduling would ordinarily signal progress in a long-running case, Besigye’s defence team objected, arguing that the timeline was too tight to allow adequate preparation, especially following what they termed late disclosure of prosecution evidence.
Lead defence counsel Erias Lukwago told court that the defence needed more time to consult with their clients and adequately prepare for trial.
“We request at least a month to be able to work out modalities with our clients. We cannot do it here because prison officers are always listening, yet we need to consult with them in confidence,” Lukwago said.
The prosecution, led by Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, maintained that the defence had been sufficiently informed in advance, citing earlier disclosures made on January 21 and March 4, 2026, in addition to recent updates following the withdrawal of an application seeking witness identity concealment.
However, Lukwago dismissed the argument, accusing the prosecution of effectively attempting to implement through procedural scheduling what it had previously sought through its withdrawn witness protection application.
He further noted that the defence had been served with over ten hours of audiovisual material and a large volume of documentary evidence, complicating preparation within the given timeframe.
The dispute also revived earlier tensions over witness disclosure. The withdrawn prosecution application had proposed identifying witnesses alphabetically, from Witness A to Witness F, with identities revealed only seven days before testimony — a proposal the defence had opposed.
Following consultations with the accused persons, prosecution lawyer Fred Mpanga proposed that the court refers the matter to the Constitutional Court for guidance on whether the seven-day window after disclosure of witness identities meets constitutional standards for a fair trial.
Justice Baguma said he would deliver his ruling on the request for Constitutional Court guidance through the Judiciary’s Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS).
The defence also raised concerns over inconsistencies in the prosecution’s disclosures, noting that only affidavits from five witnesses had been served despite earlier indications that six witnesses would testify.
Additional procedural complaints were raised regarding delays in service of court documents. Initially, prosecution papers were served only to counsel for the third accused, Denis Oola, while Besigye’s lawyers were served on May 30, a day after the agreed deadline of May 29.
Although the defence requested sanctions for the delayed service, Justice Baguma declined to impose penalties and ordered the proceedings to continue.
Three representatives of Besigye and co-accused Obeid Lutale were eventually served on Monday morning after rejecting the earlier late service.
The court is expected to determine next steps on the Constitutional Court referral request in its upcoming ruling, setting the stage for further legal contestation over the pace and structure of the high-profile trial.
