Lawyer Eron Kiiza has intensified criticism of court proceedings in the treason case against opposition figure Kizza Besigye, accusing the State of undermining the constitutional right to legal representation.
In a detailed statement issued on Thursday, July 16, Kiiza argued that the absence of Besigye’s preferred legal team was not incidental but engineered through intimidation.
“Besigye and Lutale are not unrepresented. They have counsel — chosen, competent, willing, and ready,” he said. “What they lack is not lawyers, but a State willing to let those lawyers do their work.”
The proceedings, presided over by Emmanuel Baguma, saw the court introduce alternative lawyers under State brief. However, Kiiza said the move violated clear constitutional protections.
“A right to counsel of choice violated by force cannot be cured by the same State handpicking who shall replace the very lawyers it drove out,” he stated.
Kiiza cited what he described as a pattern of interference targeting the defence.
He referenced the alleged abduction and torture of Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and the deportation of Kenyan senior counsel Martha Karua.
“Hon. Erias Lukwago was abducted, tortured… Senior Counsel Martha Karua was deported and declared persona non grata. The remainder of the defence has been harassed at every turn,” Kiiza said. “The absence complained of was manufactured by the State.”
At the centre of the dispute is Article 28(3)(d) of Uganda’s Constitution. Kiiza emphasised that the provision guarantees the accused a lawyer of their own choosing.
“A fundamental right, not a courtesy dispensed at the pleasure of the prosecuting power,” he added. “Article 28(3)(e) exists for those who have no counsel. It cannot be weaponised against a man who has counsel.”
Despite Besigye’s rejection, the court reportedly named three advocates—Sarah Awero, Julius Sserwambala and Sylvia Namawejje—to take up the brief. Kiiza questioned their continued participation.
“These advocates without instructions have no clients. They only have a State brief… that the accused never asked them to hold and publicly denied them,” he said.
“Instructions are the foundation of the advocate–client relationship; without them, one is not counsel but an instrument.”
He further criticised a request by one of the lawyers to be granted time to study the case.
“To beg two weeks to skim files for a man who has told the world… that he does not want you, is not legal representation,” Kiiza argued. “It is participating — knowingly — in the violation of his right.”
Kiiza urged lawyers approached under State brief to decline such assignments.
“No fee, no appointment, no direction from the Bench can convert an imposition into a mandate,” he said.
“Choice of counsel is not the State’s to grant or to withdraw. It is the accused’s — and his alone.”