Besigye collapses in court as he protests Judge Baguma decision for Trial to Proceed After Courtroom Outburst Over Legal Representation

By Our reporter

KAMPALA – Dr Kizza Besigye has been rushed to hospital after he collapsed this afternoon in court. Reports indicate he was rushed to Luzira and thereafter to Mulago Hospital.

“I have learnt that Besigye has been taken to Mulago Hospital. He will not allow any government official to touch him. His personal doctor examined him in prison just three hours ago, determined that he urgently needed treatment at her clinic, and has still not been allowed to care for him,” Winnie Byanyima said of his spouse hours ago.

Several videos online showed Besigye falling down in the dock as he protested a decision by Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the High Court Criminal Division that his treason trial proceed despite protests over the commencement of the hearing over the issue of legal representation.

Presiding over the case on Wednesday, Justice Baguma ruled that Besigye, Hajji Obeid Lutale and retired Captain Denis Oola would continue to be represented by three court-appointed advocates, even as Besigye and Lutale pursue efforts to secure lawyers of their own choice.

The proceedings briefly turned tense shortly after the case was called when Besigye questioned whether the court had already ruled on an application seeking a stay of the criminal proceedings without hearing it. “Is it that you have now ruled on our application for stay of criminal proceedings without hearing it?” Besigye asked before repeatedly banging on the dock. He then shouted at the top of his voice, insisting that the trial could not proceed under the circumstances.

“How can I proceed without representation? Have those lawyers met me? We can’t continue. We shall not allow this trial to proceed,” Besigye declared, prompting Justice Baguma to restore order before the hearing continued. The prosecution, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko and Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, informed the court that it was ready to proceed with the trial and had brought its first witness.

However, Jatiko asked the court to first give guidance on the issue of legal representation. The three advocates appointed on state brief—Sylvia Namawejje, Julius Sserwambala and Sarah Awelo—told the court they the stateisited Luzira Prison to meet the accused persons. Speaking on behalf of the team, Namawejje said Besigye and Lutale declined to meet them, but they were able to interface with Capt. Oola, who instructed them to represent him. Capt. Oola confirmed meeting the advocates but clarified that they would represent him alongside his privately retained lawyers.

Justice Baguma then invited Besigye and Lutale to explain why they had declined representation by the court-appointed advocates. Addressing the court, Besigye said that during the last hearing on July 15, the accused had been presented with three possible options to resolve challenges surrounding their legal representation. He said they had since filed an application concerning their legal representation, which had been assigned by the Principal Judge to Justice Simon Peter Kinobe.

According to Besigye, the outcome of that application could eliminate the need for state-funded lawyers. Besigye explained that after receiving the judiciary’s list of 786 advocates eligible for state-funded representation, they narrowed it down to 227 lawyers practising in Kampala. Friends and relatives, he said, had been asked to obtain the advocates’ curriculum vitae to enable them to make an informed choice. He complained that most of the CVs only highlighted academic qualifications and previous employment but provided little information about the advocates’ experience in handling complex criminal trials.

“Of these three, it was only Sylvia Namawejje whose CV touches on our case. The other two have certificates in plea bargaining and case settlement. Nothing touches on the expertise relevant to our case,” Besigye submitted. He argued that because they face grave and complex charges, they needed advocates with proven competence in handling similar cases. Besigye said they were surprised when the three advocates turned up at Luzira Prison seeking to receive disclosure materials and prepare for trial before they had accepted their appointment.

He told court that none of the lawyers who had previously represented the accused had formally withdrawn from the case and that the law makes legal representation mandatory in capital offences. “There is nothing stopping the prosecution from presenting its first witness because the case has taken long and it may never take off if the court continues to wait,” Jatiko submitted. Besigye, however, blamed the delays on the State, saying the accused had spent months before the General Court Martial before those proceedings were nullified.

He recalled undertaking a hunger strike during his detention and said many civilians who had been tried before the military court remained in prison despite the Constitutional Court’s decision. “The State should be reminded that it is entirely the State which has delayed this matter,” Besigye argued. He accused the prosecution of delaying disclosure of evidence and withholding witness identities for prolonged periods.

“All we ask is that the process should be fair and not just fast,” he told the court.

Reading from a copy of the Constitution, Besigye argued that while the law provides for state-funded legal representation in capital cases, it first guarantees an accused person the right to be represented by an advocate of his or her own choice.

He further submitted that even if state-funded lawyers were eventually appointed, they would still require adequate time to meet the accused, study the prosecution’s disclosures, prepare the defence and file a certificate of trial readiness before the hearing could lawfully commence.

Besigye also reminded the court that they had filed an application seeking a stay of proceedings pending determination of their appeal and argued that the application ought to be heard before the trial proceeds. In his ruling, Justice Baguma said he had carefully considered the objections raised by the accused but found no justification for halting the trial. The judge observed that the accused had been given sufficient opportunity since September 1, 2025, to engage lawyers of their own choice and that the court had never prevented them from doing so.

Justice Baguma noted that although Besigye had argued that some of his lawyers had been deported, arrested or intimidated, several advocates and law firms remained formally on record and had never notified the court that they had ceased acting for the accused. He specifically noted that advocates including Kalibbala, Apollo Katumba, Samuel Muyizzi Tumusiime, Eron Kiiza and 13 law firms remained on record, with only one law firm having formally withdrawn its instructions.

The judge ruled that although the application before Justice Simon Peter Kinobe concerning legal representation would be respected once determined, it could not operate as a bar to the commencement of the trial. He similarly held that the pending appeal could not delay the hearing of the criminal case. Justice Baguma ruled that because the accused face capital offences, legal representation is mandatory under Article 28 of the Constitution.

He directed that the three court-appointed advocates would remain on the case, while the accused would remain free to add advocates of their own choosing at any stage of the proceedings.

“This court is not imposing lawyers. It is complying with the constitutional requirement that persons charged with capital offences must be represented,” Justice Baguma ruled. The judge also confirmed that the three assessors—Sarah Babirye, John Musana and Richard Okello—whose names had earlier been supplied to all parties without objection, would take the oath before the trial proceeds.