KAMPALA, Uganda — The High Court in Kampala has given Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba seven days to file his defence in an application lodged by jailed opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye, who accuses the military chief of making public statements that allegedly threatened his life and undermined his right to a fair trial.
Justice Emmanuel Baguma of the Criminal Division issued the directive on Thursday, ordering all five respondents in the matter to file their responses by June 18, 2026. Any rejoinders must be submitted by June 25, ahead of a scheduled hearing on June 30.
The application also names Col Peter Ahimbisibwe, Lt Col Ephraim Byaruhanga and the Attorney General as respondents. Ahimbisibwe and Byaruhanga are alleged to have participated in the operation that led to the arrest of Besigye and his co-accused, Hajj Obeid Lutale, in Kenya.
At the heart of the application are several social media posts allegedly published by Gen Muhoozi on X, which Dr Besigye’s legal team argues amounted to threats, prejudgment of guilt and interference with judicial independence.
Among the statements cited is a January 16, 2025 post allegedly stating: “We will hang KB on Heroes’ Day. That’s the best day for him to die.”
The applicants also reference a February 19, 2026 post in which Gen Muhoozi allegedly wrote: “Besigye wanted to kill Mzee, so as far as we are concerned, UPDF, he is a dead man walking.”
Other statements cited in court documents allegedly suggested Besigye would leave prison only “in his coffin” or after apologising to President Yoweri Museveni.
According to the application, the statements collectively amount to threats to life, psychological intimidation and public pronouncements that could prejudice ongoing court proceedings.
“The 1st respondent’s statements, individually and cumulatively, constitute direct threats to life, psychological and mental torture, the public prejudgment of guilt, and interference with the independence and impartiality of the court,” the application states.
Dr Besigye’s lawyers argue that such comments by the country’s top military officer undermine the constitutional presumption of innocence and risk influencing judicial proceedings before evidence is presented in court.
The treason trial involving Dr Besigye and Lutale was expected to commence on Thursday but did not proceed after the two accused declined to appear before court.
Assistant Superintendent of Prisons Emmanuel Hiire informed the court that the pair cited unresolved issues involving their legal representation and the court process.
When Justice Baguma sought clarification, Hiire said further explanation should be obtained from the Commissioner General of Prisons, Dr Johnson Byabashaija.
Court sources indicated that the standoff is linked to the pending application against Muhoozi, the military officers and the Attorney General.
Dr Besigye and Lutale have also raised concerns about access to legal counsel, alleging that restrictions on prison visits and access to electronic devices have hampered preparation of their defence.
Captain Denis Oola, the third accused person in the case and the only one present in court, also complained that prison authorities had prevented him from consulting with his co-accused.
His lawyer, Maj Simon Busagwa Nsubuga, argued that the accused persons’ right to a fair hearing under Article 28 of the Constitution had been compromised.
“I didn’t have a chance, time or leverage to meet my client,” Busagwa submitted, adding that previous court directives had not been effectively implemented.
Lawyers representing Besigye and Lutale, including Martha Karua, Erias Lukwago and Eron Kiiza, told the court that the proceedings could not continue fairly in the absence of their clients.
Outside the courthouse, supporters led by Ingrid Turinawe staged a protest, expressing opposition to Justice Baguma presiding over the matter.
Meanwhile, the prosecution, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko, informed the court that two witnesses were present and ready to testify.
Justice Baguma subsequently issued a production warrant directing Uganda Prisons Service to produce Dr Besigye and Lutale in court on June 30, when the application will be heard before trial proceedings can continue.
The application, filed as Miscellaneous Application No. 922 of 2026 arising from Criminal Session Case No. 335 of 2025, seeks several declarations from the court.
Besigye and Lutale argue that their alleged arrest in Nairobi on November 16, 2024 by Ugandan security operatives was unlawful and rendered subsequent criminal proceedings legally defective.
They contend that they were forcibly returned to Uganda without formal extradition proceedings, detained at Makindye Military Barracks, denied access to lawyers, family members and medical personnel, and later arraigned before the General Court Martial.
The applicants are also challenging the legality of their continued prosecution following the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v Michael Kabaziguruka, which restricted the trial of civilians before military courts.
Dr Besigye, Lutale and Oola are jointly charged with treason and misprision of treason.
Prosecutors allege that the accused participated in meetings in Geneva, Athens, Nairobi and Kampala aimed at soliciting funds, acquiring weapons and organising paramilitary activities intended to overthrow the government.
The prosecution further alleges that Besigye met a Kurdish intelligence operative identified as Andrew Wilson and received funding to facilitate military training for Ugandan recruits in Kenya.
State prosecutors also claim the accused sought to acquire surface-to-air missiles, ricin poison and counterfeit currency, and intended to use drone technology in plots targeting President Museveni.
The accused have denied wrongdoing.
Prosecutors say they intend to rely on audio and video recordings, social media communications, immigration records and telephone data as part of their evidence during trial.
The case remains one of Uganda’s most closely watched legal and political proceedings, with significant implications for the opposition leader and the broader debate surrounding due process, fair trial rights and the role of military authorities in civilian matters.
