ULs Accuses Museveni of Interfering in Besigye Trial

The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has strongly condemned President Yoweri Museveni's recent public comments regarding the ongoing treason trial of opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye and his renewed calls for the abolition of bail. The ULS asserts that these remarks constitute unconstitutional executive interference in the administration of justice, directly undermining judicial independence and prejudicing Dr. Besigye's constitutional right to a fair hearing. The legal body highlighted that such statements violate the sub judice rule and challenge the fundamental principles of separation of powers enshrined in the Ugandan Constitution. This development has reignited concerns among legal professionals about the Executive's respect for the rule of law and the autonomy of the Judiciary in Uganda.

The legal landscape in Uganda has been stirred by a recent pronouncement from the Uganda Law Society (ULS), which has publicly condemned President Yoweri Museveni for his comments concerning the treason trial of veteran opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye and his persistent advocacy for the abolition of bail. The ULS views these remarks as a direct assault on the independence of the Judiciary and a clear instance of executive overreach into judicial functions.

President Museveni, in a televised national address, reportedly criticized the protracted nature of Dr. Besigye's trial, suggesting that the accused was deliberately delaying proceedings rather than presenting a defense. He also reiterated his long-standing opposition to the granting of bail, particularly in serious criminal cases, arguing that suspects often interfere with investigations and intimidate witnesses. The ULS, in response, issued a statement asserting that the President's public commentary on an active criminal case amounts to sub judice contempt of court and directly prejudices Dr. Besigye's constitutional right to a fair hearing.

This article delves into the legal and constitutional implications of President Museveni's statements, examining how they challenge the doctrine of separation of powers and judicial independence in Uganda. It will explore the constitutional provisions governing bail and judicial autonomy, analyze the ULS's legal arguments, and discuss the broader ramifications for the rule of law and public confidence in the justice system.

Uganda's constitutional framework is founded on the principle of separation of powers, dividing governmental authority among the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary. Central to this structure is the independence of the Judiciary, explicitly safeguarded by Article 128 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995. This Article stipulates that in the exercise of judicial power, courts shall be independent and not subject to the control or direction of any person or authority, and that no person or authority shall interfere with courts or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions.

The right to personal liberty and the presumption of innocence are also fundamental constitutional guarantees. Article 23(6) of the Constitution provides that a person arrested in respect of a criminal offence is entitled to apply to the court to be released on bail, with the court having the discretion to grant bail on reasonable conditions. Furthermore, Article 28(3)(a) enshrines the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. The Magistrates Courts Act, Cap 16, and the Trial on Indictments Act, Cap 23, further elaborate on the procedures and conditions for granting bail in different courts.

Dr. Kizza Besigye, a prominent opposition politician and four-time presidential candidate, has faced numerous arrests and charges over the years. His current treason trial stems from allegations of plotting to remove the government by force. The case was notably transferred from the military justice system to civilian courts following a Supreme Court ruling that civilians cannot be tried by military courts. The trial has been characterized by various legal challenges and adjournments, leading to the President's recent comments.

President Museveni's recent remarks, delivered during a national address, directly questioned the conduct of Dr. Besigye's treason trial and the broader application of bail. He accused Dr. Besigye of intentionally delaying his trial through repeated legal challenges and expressed dismay at the legal system's perceived allowance of such protracted proceedings. More critically, the President renewed his long-standing proposal to abolish bail for certain serious offences, arguing that suspects often interfere with investigations and intimidate witnesses if released.

The Uganda Law Society swiftly countered these statements, asserting that they constitute "clear sub judice contempt of court." The ULS argued that by publicly discussing the motives, conduct, and merits of an active criminal case, the President violated the sub judice rule, which prohibits commentary that could prejudice ongoing judicial proceedings. Such comments, the ULS contended, directly undermine Dr. Besigye's constitutional right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed by Article 28 of the Constitution.

Furthermore, the ULS emphasized that the President's remarks amount to unconstitutional executive interference with judicial independence, a principle enshrined in Article 128 of the Constitution. Decisions regarding bail are exclusively within the purview of the courts, guided by constitutional provisions and statutory law, not by executive directives or public pronouncements. The ULS highlighted that any blanket policy to abolish bail would violate Articles 23 and 28(3)(a) of the Constitution, which guarantee personal liberty and the presumption of innocence. This position aligns with previous statements by the Chief Justice, who affirmed that bail is governed by the Constitution and relevant laws, and any change would require legislative amendment.

The ULS also called upon the Judiciary, including the Chief Justice and judicial leadership, to publicly denounce the President's remarks. They cited the stance taken by Magistrate Sheilla Gloria Atim in *Uganda v. Miria Matembe* (Luzira Criminal Case No. 132 of 2026) as an example of judicial officers resisting external interference and upholding judicial independence. Such executive statements, regardless of intent, can create a perception of executive influence over judicial outcomes, thereby eroding public confidence in the impartiality and fairness of the justice system.

The Uganda Law Society's strong condemnation of President Museveni's comments on Dr. Kizza Besigye's treason trial and the issue of bail underscores a critical tension between the Executive and Judiciary in Uganda. These remarks, perceived as direct interference, threaten the foundational principles of separation of powers, judicial independence, and the right to a fair trial, which are cornerstones of constitutional democracy.

For legal practitioners, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing need to vigilantly defend constitutionalism and the rule of law. Attorneys must continue to advocate for the strict adherence to judicial processes, the protection of fundamental rights such as the right to bail and the presumption of innocence, and the safeguarding of judicial autonomy from executive encroachment. The legal community, alongside civil society, must remain watchful for any legislative attempts to curtail bail rights and monitor the Judiciary's response to calls for it to publicly assert its independence, ensuring that justice is administered without fear or favour.