KAMPALA, Uganda — The High Court in Uganda has dismissed an application by jailed opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, challenging the deportation of Kenyan lawyer Martha Karua and the arrest of Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago.
Acting High Court Judge Simon Peter M. Kinobe ruled on Tuesday, August 11, that Besigye and Lutale had failed to prove that Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba and the Attorney General deliberately interfered with their constitutional right to legal representation or compromised the fairness of their ongoing criminal proceedings.
The ruling does not, however, declare Karua’s deportation lawful.
Instead, the court held that any direct challenge to the legality of the immigration decision should be brought through judicial review, rather than through the constitutional and human rights proceedings filed by Dr. Besigye and Lutale.
Court finds no link between Muhoozi posts and Karua’s deportation
Dr Besigye and Lutale had sued Gen Muhoozi personally alongside the Attorney General, accusing the authorities of interfering with their defence team.
Their lawyers relied partly on social media posts attributed to Gen. Muhoozi’s verified X account following Karua’s denial of entry into Uganda on June 22.
In one post, Gen. Muhoozi was quoted as saying he had personally deported Karua and that she was no longer allowed in Uganda.
The applicants also cited posts in which Gen. Muhoozi said Besigye would not escape his sentence and another in which he threatened that Dr. Besigye would be hanged.
The defence argued that the statements demonstrated Gen. Muhoozi’s involvement in actions affecting Besigye’s legal representation and that they amounted to prejudging the criminal case.
Justice Kinobe, however, found that the posts alone did not establish a sufficient evidential connection between Gen. Muhoozi and the immigration decision.
“Beyond exhibiting the publications, the Applicants have not established a sufficient evidential nexus between those statements and the immigration decision affecting Hon. Martha Karua, SC.”
The judge said there was no cogent evidence that Muhoozi exercised legal authority over the immigration officers involved or that they acted on his instructions.
Karua was denied entry at Entebbe
Karua, a former Kenyan justice minister and presidential candidate, has served as lead counsel for Besigye and Lutale since November 2024.
She travelled to Uganda on June 22 ahead of proceedings involving the two men but was denied entry at Entebbe International Airport and subsequently returned to Nairobi.
According to her affidavit, Karua arrived on a Kenya Airways flight at about 8:50am alongside two other people, including the president of the Law Society of Kenya.
She said immigration officials initially stamped her passport before separating her from the delegation and informing her that she would not be allowed into Uganda because of unspecified security concerns.
Karua further alleged that two mobile phones were forcibly taken from her before being returned. She declined to take them back because of concerns that confidential communications relating to Dr. Besigye’s defence could have been accessed or interfered with.
Immigration authorities subsequently served her with a notice classifying her as a prohibited immigrant, citing “persona non grata”, before returning her to Nairobi the same day.
Dr. Besigye and Lutale wanted the High Court to overturn the decision and permanently restrain the government from blocking, detaining or deporting Karua whenever she travelled to Uganda to represent them.
Justice Kinobe declined to determine whether the immigration authorities had acted lawfully, holding that the appropriate avenue for challenging that decision was judicial review.
“The appropriate procedure for directly challenging the immigration decision is Judicial Review,” the judge said.
The distinction is significant: the ruling settled the constitutional claim before the court but did not amount to a finding that Karua’s exclusion from Uganda was legally justified.
Besigye still had more than 50 lawyers
The applicants also argued that the exclusion of Karua and the arrest of Lukwago had deprived them of their constitutional right to legal representation of their choice.
The court rejected that argument, noting that Besigye and Lutale continued to have access to a substantial legal team.
Justice Kinobe said the record showed that the two accused had engaged about 13 law firms comprising more than 50 advocates.
“The Applicants were not deprived of their constitutional right under Article 28(3)(d) of the Constitution,” the judge ruled.
The judge further noted that the trial court had repeatedly adjourned proceedings to allow Besigye and Lutale to reorganise their defence team. They had also been offered an opportunity to select lawyers from a list of state brief advocates.
Kinobe said the right to counsel of one’s choice was constitutionally protected but had to be exercised in a manner that also allowed judicial proceedings to proceed without unreasonable delay.
Karua could participate remotely
The court also pointed to Uganda’s provisions allowing lawyers and other participants to take part in proceedings through video conferencing.
Kinobe said Karua’s physical absence from Uganda did not necessarily prevent her from participating in the defence.
Besigye and Lutale could have applied to the trial court for permission for Karua to participate remotely, he said.
The judge found no evidence that Karua had been prevented from advising the accused, preparing pleadings, developing legal strategy or consulting other lawyers on the defence team.
Court rejects argument over Lukwago’s arrest
Besigye and Lutale had also challenged the arrest of Lukwago, who was part of their defence team and was subsequently accused of misprision of treason.
They argued that his arrest and prosecution were intended to remove him from the defence team and intimidate other lawyers representing them.
The government rejected the claim, maintaining that Lukwago was in lawful custody and that the Director of Public Prosecutions had not interfered with the accused persons’ choice of lawyers.
Justice Kinobe ruled that a person’s status as defence counsel did not place them beyond the reach of criminal law.
Also Read: Dr Kizza Besigye remains in ICU after collapsing during High Court trial
“The mere fact that a person serves as counsel in ongoing litigation does not give him immunity from the ordinary operation of the criminal law system.”
The judge consequently found that Besigye and Lutale had not proved, on a balance of probabilities, that Muhoozi or the government deliberately or substantially interfered with their right to legal representation.
Ruling leaves Karua’s immigration case open
The decision leaves a separate legal question unresolved: whether immigration authorities were legally entitled to deny Karua entry into Uganda and designate her a prohibited immigrant.
That issue can still be pursued through the judicial review process identified by the High Court.
The court’s decision also comes against a wider dispute over Besigye’s ongoing treason proceedings and the composition of his defence team.
Karua’s deportation in June had drawn international concern, with Amnesty International calling for an investigation into what it described as her unlawful detention and deportation.
The High Court dismissed the application but directed each side to bear its own costs, citing the fundamental constitutional questions raised by the case.
Dr. Besigye and Lutale remain on trial in Criminal Session Case No. 335 of 2025.
