The UPDF General Court Martial has further remanded Col. Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutaale Kamulegeya and Captain Denis Oula, who face charges of treachery. The trio will remain in custody until January 14, 2025, when the court, chaired by Brigadier Robert Freeman Mugabe, will rule on whether it has the jurisdiction to try the case.
This decision follows Besigye’s refusal to plead to the charges during a previous session on January 13, 2025. Through his legal team, led by prominent lawyers Erias Lukwago and Martha Karua, Besigye has consistently challenged the court’s authority to prosecute civilians for alleged offenses committed outside Uganda.
According to the charges, Besigye, Lutaale, and Oula are accused of being found with weapons in Greece, Switzerland, and Kenya—items purported to be a monopoly of the defense forces. Lukwago contends that these allegations fall outside the scope of the UPDF General Court Martial’s jurisdiction, as the purported offenses occurred in foreign territories.
The defense argues that weapons classified as a defense monopoly in Uganda cannot automatically be deemed so in other jurisdictions. “Kenya, Switzerland, and Greece have their own competent courts to handle offenses committed within their borders,” Lukwago stated, questioning the legitimacy of Uganda’s authority over such cases.
Besigye has also raised concerns about his arrest and subsequent extradition to Uganda, which he claims bypassed due process. He argues that if he and his co-accused had committed offenses in Kenya, the proper procedure would have been for the Ugandan Minister of Justice to formally request extradition from Kenya. Alternatively, he suggests that if the accused had entered Kenya illegally and committed crimes, they should have been subjected to Kenyan legal processes before deportation.
In response, state prosecutors maintain that the accused were lawfully returned to Uganda through inter-state arrangements, emphasizing that these mechanisms extended beyond the typical extradition and deportation processes. They argue that the arrangements adhered to international legal frameworks and facilitated the suspects’ trial in Uganda.
The defense has called for the dismissal of the charges, describing the charge sheet as defective and failing to clearly establish a connection to Uganda’s legal framework. Besigye’s lawyers insist that the charges do not adequately specify how the alleged offenses relate to Ugandan law or the UPDF’s authority.
As the court deliberates on its jurisdiction, the case has drawn widespread attention, underscoring legal complexities in prosecuting transnational offenses and raising questions about the military court’s mandate over civilians and incidents beyond Ugandan borders.
The court’s ruling on January 14 is expected to set a significant precedent regarding the scope of its authority and the handling of similar cases in the future.
