Exiled lawyer Kakwenza Rukirabashaija has criticised the conduct of Justice Emmanuel Baguma, raising fresh concerns over fairness in the ongoing trial of opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye.
In a detailed statement, Kakwenza questioned the judge’s handling of proceedings, suggesting that his conduct risks eroding confidence in the judiciary.
“Every time I watch the proceedings, I ask myself at what point does a judge stop presiding over proceedings and quietly begin assisting one side?” Kakwenza posed.
He acknowledged Justice Baguma’s legal competence but insisted that knowledge of the law alone is not sufficient without visible neutrality in court.
“A judge is required not merely to be impartial but to appear impartial. A courtroom is the one place where even the loser should leave believing that he was heard fairly,” he said.
Kakwenza warned that once such confidence is lost, the justice system risks being reduced to a mere formality.
“Once that confidence disappears, the court building remains a courthouse only in architecture,” he added.
The outspoken lawyer, who has previously clashed with Ugandan authorities, also urged judicial officers to reflect on how their decisions affect ordinary citizens.
He presented a hypothetical scenario in which a family member faces trial, arguing that fairness becomes more urgent when justice hits closer to home.
“Imagine your son, daughter, brother or wife standing in the dock… Would you walk out of that courtroom praising the administration of justice?” he asked.
He further accused the court of appearing to treat constitutional objections lightly while showing uneven treatment to parties in the case.
“He interrupts one side with impatience and indulges the other with enthusiasm… He behaves as though the accused is already halfway to conviction,” Kakwenza claimed.
The remarks come amid long-standing criticism of how politically sensitive cases are handled in Uganda, particularly those involving opposition figures like Besigye.
Kakwenza also took aim at what he described as judicial proximity to executive power, arguing that the bench must act as a safeguard against state excesses.
“A judge owes loyalty to the Constitution, not the appointing authority,” he stated.
Drawing from history, he referenced Sir Thomas More, saying: “He is remembered… not because he pleased the King but because there came a point where pleasing the King and obeying the law became incompatible.”
He concluded by warning that judicial decisions carry lasting consequences beyond the present moment.
“Your judgments will outlive the despot who signed your instrument of appointment. That is both the privilege and the burden of judicial office,” Kakwenza said.