In the Kampala High Court hearing on Thursday, Justice Emmanuel Baguma dismissed a defense motion to refer constitutional questions in the treason trial of Dr. Kizza Besigye, Hajji Obeid Lutale, and Capt. Denis Oola to the Constitutional Court.
He ruled that claims of bias were speculative and set the plea-taking for December 4, 2025.
The decision prompted Lutale’s daughter, Mariam Obeid Lutale, to lunge at the judge in protest over her father’s prolonged detention, leading to her arrest for contempt of court.
The charges against the trio stem from their November 2024 arrests in Kenya and alleged rendition to Uganda for conspiring to overthrow the government.
The defense had argued that Justice Baguma should recuse himself or allow the constitutional question whether a judge accused of bias can lawfully continue presiding over a case to be referred to the Constitutional Court. They claimed that Besigye and Lutale had reason to doubt the judge’s impartiality based on previous rulings and comments perceived to favor the prosecution.
The motion alleged that proceeding under a judge viewed as biased would violate the constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing.
The People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) condemned Justice Baguma’s ruling, calling it a blatant mockery of justice.
In a statement titled “The Judge, The Bias and The Mockery of Justice,” the group said the High Court’s decision undermines the very principles of fairness and independence enshrined in Uganda’s Constitution.
“The defense team of our leaders, Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Kamulegeya Lutale, sought to have a fundamental question referred to the Constitutional Court: Can a judge, whom the accused formally consider biased and incompetent, still handle their trial?” the statement reads.
PFF warned that Justice Baguma’s refusal to refer the matter effectively blocks the Constitutional Court from clarifying a core right, Article 28(1) of the Constitution which guarantees a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.
“This isn’t just a legal setback; it’s a profound breakdown of the basic principles of fairness. The maxim ‘Nemo judex in causa sua’ (No one should be a judge in his own cause) has been totally violated,” the group said.
The statement added that the judge’s conduct amounts to obstructing justice rather than dispensing it, warning that such actions erode public confidence in the judiciary.
“How can justice be seen to be done when the accused are forced to seek fairness from the very person they accuse of prejudice?” the PFF asked.
The group reaffirmed its commitment to the rule of law and called for judicial accountability, emphasizing that a fair trial cannot exist where the accused have no confidence in the judge presiding over their case.
