Besigye Trial Delayed Again: Nakawa Court Defers Main Suit to March 28 Amid Defense Frustration

The Nakawa Magistrate’s Court has allowed the prosecution to file yet another application and deferred the main suit to March 28, leaving the defence team frustrated as they accused the court of entertaining delay tactics

The trial of opposition stalwart Kizza Besigye and his associate Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya took yet another twist in Nakawa Court today.

Magistrate Esther Nyadoi has ordered the duo to return to court on Friday, March 14, to hear a new application stemming from the main suit.

The main suit itself will be mentioned again on March 28, effectively ruling our any chance of Besigye walking out on bail any time soon.

During today’s proceedings, Dr Besigye’s defense team expressed frustration, accusing the prosecution of employing “legal gymnastics” to delay the case.

Thomas Jatiko, assistant director of Public Prosecutions, along with Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka and Senior State Attorney Eunice Baine, represented the prosecution.

Birivumbuka requested an adjournment, explaining that inquiries into the case were still ongoing.

However, his request faced resistance from the defense.

“While we understand that inquiries are still being made, we must avoid a situation where we are chasing wind,” said Fred Mpanga, one of Besigye’s lawyers.

He also questioned why the prosecution was yet to disclose specific legal provisions that would justify the six-month period referenced by the state.

“We request that you avoid trial by ambush,” Mpanga added.

Birivumbuka, however, defended the prosecution’s actions, stating, “We are not obliged to disclose all details at this stage as it could jeopardize ongoing investigations.”

He maintained that the six-month period for investigation was still applicable.

The issue of the six-month period was central to the defense’s argument.

Erias Lukwago, another prominent lawyer representing Dr. Besigye, accused the prosecution of abusing the constitutional provision under Article 28, which guarantees the right to a fair and timely trial.

“By continuing to detain our client without a clear legal basis, they are not only violating his rights but also undermining the spirit of the Constitution,” Lukwago stated.

The court also heard submissions regarding the identity of one of the co-accused individuals, referred to as A3.

Birivumbuka requested that A3’s name be excluded from the application, leaving only A1 and A2 to be discussed further in court. The defense raised no objections to this request, and the court agreed to proceed accordingly.

There was also discussion about the late filing of crucial documents, including exhibits, which were received by the defense on March 4 and served the following day.

Lukwago questioned the delay in the filing of the application, particularly the absence of any explanation as to why the matter had not been brought to court earlier.

“They filed this application with a lack of professional courtesy, and we must ask why it took so long for the state to move forward,” Lukwago argued.

As the court looks ahead to the next phase of the proceedings, Magistrate Nyadoi gave the prosecution until March 11 to file any rejoinders.

The case is set to return to court on Friday, March 14, at 10am, for the hearing of the new application.

In the meantime, Captain Richard Nsubuga, also part of the defense team, raised concerns about the prolonged detention of the accused, particularly Captain Olaa, who has been in custody for over a year without clear legal justification.

“The continued detention without a legal basis is unacceptable,” Nsubuga said.

“It is a violation of their rights, and we call for their immediate release or proper legal proceedings.”

With the case expected to proceed next week, tensions remain high as both the prosecution and defense continue to clash over the legal basis for the delays.

The court will decide next Friday whether the new application will move forward or whether the delays will continue.

Dr Besigye’s lawyers have repeatedly emphasized that this case must not be allowed to become a “legal circus” and are demanding a fair and prompt resolution.