Uganda Prisons has defended its controversial decision to prevent Elias Lukwago, the lawyer representing opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, from visiting his client.
According to the Uganda Prisons Commissioner General, Byabashaija, the decision was made because the Human Rights Committee was visiting Besigye on the same day, and Members of Parliament (MPs) were given precedence over other visitors.
Byabashaija explained that he had authorized MPs to visit Dr. Besigye due to the large volume of requests for access, necessitating a need to maintain order at the facility.
“I had to ensure that the visiting schedule was adhered to, as it was a busy day,” he said, emphasizing that order is crucial in these high-profile cases. “I do not regret blocking Lukwago; prioritizing MPs was essential for maintaining structure among the many seeking to visit.”
However, Byabashaija clarified that Lukwago was allowed to meet with Dr. Besigye the following day, indicating that the prison authorities are willing to accommodate legal representatives despite the circumstances.
Dr. Kizza Besigye, a prominent figure in Uganda’s opposition politics, has been facing serious charges, including unlawful possession of firearms and threats to national security. His legal team, including Lukwago, has been working diligently to ensure that he receives a fair trial amidst a politically charged environment.
This incident highlights ongoing tensions between opposition leaders and government authorities in Uganda, as the political landscape remains fraught with challenges. The prison’s actions have sparked discussions about access to legal representation and the rights of political detainees in the country.
It should be noted that the Uganda Human Rights Commission (UHRC) recently denounced the charges brought against opposition stalwart Kiiza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale Kamulegya, urging the government to drop the case entirely.
The commission expressed serious concerns over the legality and manner in which the charges were filed, calling them “defective” and “incurable”.
In a revealing interview with Mariam Wangadya, chairperson of UHRC, the commission highlighted its opposition to the four-count charge sheet presented against Besigye and Lutale.
It argued that the alleged offenses occurred on foreign soil—in Kenya—and as such, the case falls outside the jurisdiction of Uganda’s military courts.
“The charges should be dropped without condition,” Wangadya stated, adding that if any charges were to be preferred, they should be addressed in a civilian court, not a military one.
“The charge sheet is fundamentally flawed and cannot be corrected. Criminal law clearly states that offenses committed on foreign soil must be prosecuted in the country where they happened,” she explained.
Wangadya also took issue with the decision to try Besigye and Lutale in the General Court Martial, a tribunal generally reserved for active military personnel.
Both men are civilians, and the commission argued that the charges brought against them do not fall under military jurisdiction.
“These are civilians, not military officers, so military law doesn’t apply here. The charge sheet is defective and cannot be fixed. It should be dropped immediately,” Wangadya remarked, stressing the inappropriateness of using military courts for such cases.
In addition to the legal concerns, the commission criticized the forceful removal of Dr Besigye from Nairobi by Ugandan authorities. Wangadya questioned the need for such swift action, particularly since the alleged meetings he was accused of organizing had not yet borne any fruit.
“If there was to be an arrest, it should not have been conducted in this aggressive manner. The authorities could have waited for him to return to Uganda. What was the rush?” Wangadya said.
“The country was not in any crisis, and there was no indication of a threat to national security.”
The Chairperson also noted that the urgency behind Besigye’s removal, especially in the absence of any immediate danger, raised questions.
“Why such an urgent operation? If the alleged meetings were even real, there was no immediate threat to national security. Why the haste?” she added.
