KAMPALA, Uganda — Makerere University was paid about Shs59.32 million to transcribe more than 24 hours of audio recordings allegedly linked to meetings involving jailed opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye, a police detective has told the High Court.
Detective Inspector Benedict Odyek told the court on Thursday that the recordings, extracted from electronic devices submitted for forensic examination, lasted 24 hours, 43 minutes and 15 seconds.
He said Makerere University’s Centre of Languages charged Shs40,000 per minute to transcribe the material, which investigators consider relevant to the treason case against Besigye and his co-accused.
Odyek, 56, who is attached to the Criminal Investigations Directorate (CID) headquarters, said he took the audio files to the university in September 2025 after obtaining a quotation and invoice from the centre.
He testified that he first visited the centre on September 3, 2025, to obtain the quotation and invoice, returning two days later with a formal request letter before making the payment. The quotation presented in court was signed by Mary Katungi, the centre’s client relations officer.
Odyek said he is one of three detectives investigating the case under the supervision of Commissioner of Police Lydia Kantono. The other officers are Detective Inspectors Nelson Natumanya and Wilbern Tworekirwe.
Recordings extracted from concealed devices
The detective told the court that the recordings were extracted from electronic devices handed to him by Andrew Wilson, also known as Orlando, and Wilson’s friend Moses Barasa.
The exhibits included three mobile phones, a hard drive fitted with a concealed camera, a power bank containing a concealed camera, a wall socket with a concealed camera, a magnetic listening device, a watch described in court as an “attitude chronometer” and a USB cable.
According to Odyek, Wilson told investigators that the devices had been used to record Besigye, Joel Wakayima and Frank Kihehere during meetings in Geneva, Switzerland; Athens, Greece; and Nairobi, Kenya.
Wilson allegedly claimed that the meetings involved plans to overthrow the Ugandan government. Odyek also testified that Wilson said Besigye’s co-accused, Obeid Lutale, attended the Nairobi meeting alongside a Kurdish associate.
The claims were presented as accounts Wilson allegedly gave investigators. They do not, by themselves, establish that the meetings took place as described or that the accused participated in a plot to overthrow the government.
Odyek said he received most of the exhibits on March 21 and March 27, 2025, with additional items handed to him on September 9 that year. He said he labelled the exhibits with his initials before submitting them for forensic examination.
On March 25, 2025, he obtained a court order signed by Grade One Magistrate Opio Charles Kangira authorising the police forensic unit to examine the devices.
The order directed the head of the Cyber Crimes Department in the Directorate of Forensics to image, analyse and extract information from the exhibits before preparing a report. Odyek said he also swore an affidavit in support of the application.
He testified that he collected the forensic report and a 64-gigabyte flash drive containing extracted audio and video files from the Cyber Crimes Department in Naguru on September 2, 2025.
The report was prepared by Superintendent of Police Kenneth Angulu, the head of the forensic department, who was identified in the proceedings as Examiner No. 9.
Odyek said some of the recordings contained audio in which Besigye could be heard introducing himself and Lutale. Investigators later copied selected material onto a 16-gigabyte flash drive for transcription because, according to the detective, some of the information on the larger drive was irrelevant to the treason investigation.
Defence objects to undisclosed documents
The proceedings also featured a dispute over whether the prosecution had disclosed all the documents it intended to rely on to the defence.
Defence lawyer Farouk Kizito Kamulegeya objected to the admission of the court order authorising access to information on the electronic devices, saying the defence had not received a copy and needed an opportunity to verify its authenticity.
He also challenged the admission of Makerere University’s quotation and invoice, arguing that the documents had not been disclosed to the defence before being presented in court.
Kamulegeya asked trial judge Emmanuel Baguma to direct the prosecution, led by Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, to provide all outstanding documents.
Also Read: Besigye discussed drone attack on Museveni, state witness tells Ugandan court
Lawyers representing Captain Denis Oola, led by Sylvia Namawejje Ebitu, supported the application, saying they had been taken by surprise by documents they were seeing for the first time.
Justice Baguma directed the prosecution to disclose the remaining documents to the defence. He admitted the contested court order, subject to it being shown to be inauthentic.
The case is scheduled to resume on November 2, when Odyek is expected to face cross-examination.
What the prosecution alleges
Besigye, Lutale and Oola face treason charges arising from alleged meetings in Uganda, Kenya, Greece and Switzerland, which the prosecution says were connected to efforts to secure funding, obtain weapons and organise paramilitary activities.
The prosecution alleges that Besigye met Wilson, whom it describes as a Kurdish intelligence operative, and received $5,000 to facilitate the transportation of 36 Ugandans to Kisumu, Kenya, for military training. Prosecutors say the group was intercepted and deported before the training could begin.
The State further alleges that the accused planned to acquire surface-to-air missiles, ricin poison and counterfeit currency, and to use drones in an alleged plot to assassinate President Yoweri Museveni.
Prosecutors have indicated that they intend to rely on witness testimony, audio and video recordings, social media communications, immigration records and telephone data to support their case.
The significance of the recordings, the circumstances in which they were obtained and the interpretation placed on their contents remain matters for the court to assess as the trial proceeds.
