By Sekaggya Seka Moses
– In a dramatic court session, Nakawa Chief Magistrate Christine Nantege has declined to grant mandatory bail to opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused Ronald Lutale, referring the matter to the High Court.
The decision has sparked sharp protests from the defence team, who argue that their clients have spent over six months on remand without trial, exceeding the constitutional threshold for mandatory bail.
The court session was highly anticipated, with Besigye and Lutale appearing before the Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court on Thursday seeking release under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution.
The clause provides that suspects held for over 180 days without committal for trial are entitled to mandatory bail.
Lawyer David Mpanga, part of the defence team, emphasized that the duo’s detention has surpassed the constitutional limit, saying, “This marks 196 days since Dr. Besigye and Mr. Lutale were first remanded.
Their detention exceeds the constitutional threshold. The right to mandatory bail is ripe and must be honoured.”
However, the prosecution, led by State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, argued that the 180-day clock should be counted from the date of the new charges, filed on February 21, 2025, rather than the original remand before the General Court Martial in November 2024.
Birivumbuka claimed that the previous military proceedings have no bearing on the current case, stating, “They have only been in remand for three months and eight days under the charges known to this court.”
The defence team vehemently opposed this interpretation, calling it a constitutional evasion tactic.
Eron Kiiza, a lawyer for the accused, argued that liberty cannot be reset by transferring the file or rephrasing the charges.
“Liberty cannot be reset by transferring the file or rephrasing the charges,” Kiiza said. “The Constitution protects against prolonged detention, not only under one courtroom.”
Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, also part of the defence team, emphasized that the state had not committed the accused to the High Court within 180 days, as required by law.
“This court cannot entertain amendments to the charge sheet without addressing the accused’s liberty as a matter of priority,” he said. “The charges can be amended, but liberty cannot be postponed.”
Despite these arguments, Chief Magistrate Nantege ruled that the Nakawa court had no jurisdiction to address the bail application on its merits.
“This court lacks jurisdiction to entertain constitutional interpretation or consider time spent in military custody,” she said, advising the applicants to petition the High Court for a remedy.
The decision provoked immediate objections from the defence team.
Mpanga insisted that the magistrate had a duty to refer the application to the High Court under Guideline 11.03 of the Judiciary Bail Guidelines.
“This court has avoided its constitutional responsibility by neither hearing the matter nor transferring it,” he said.
Karua, another lawyer for the accused, pressed the question of when the period of remand starts, arguing that treating civilian and military detention as unrelated undermines the Constitution’s protection of liberty.
“When does the period of remand start?” she asked, highlighting the need for clarity on this critical issue.
The prosecution’s actions during the session also drew criticism.
State Attorney Birivumbuka accused the defence of withholding affidavits, requesting an hour’s adjournment.
However, Karua dismissed the claim, saying the affidavit in question bore only a date. Magistrate Nantege granted a 10-minute break instead.
Upon resumption, Birivumbuka claimed the application was filed in bad faith, stating, “They are tainted with dirt in this application.
Now that we are ready to commit them, this mandatory bail claim is meant to frustrate trial.”
The defence team dismissed this logic as unconstitutional, with Lukwago emphasizing that the readiness of the state to commit suspects cannot override the right to bail. “The readiness of the state to commit suspects cannot override the right to bail,” Lukwago said. “That is not how justice works.”
As the case continues to unfold, Besigye and Lutale remain in custody, with their lawyers insisting that the law is clear and must be followed.
The defence team has confirmed that it will now seek a revision from the High Court to challenge Magistrate Nantege’s ruling and enforce their clients’ right to liberty.
Besigye, a four-time presidential candidate, and Lutale have been in continuous state custody since November 2024, sparking concerns about prolonged detention without trial.
The outcome of the High Court revision will be crucial in determining the fate of Besigye and Lutale, and potentially setting a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Have An Advert Or Article You Want Us To Publish? Whatsapp: +256786288379 or email binocularugnews@gmail.com
