A fresh legal critique has emerged over the misprision of treason charges facing former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, with lawyer Eron Kiiza arguing that the case lacks evidential grounding and instead reflects political targeting.
Kiiza contends that the prosecution has failed to link Lukwago to any direct acts associated with treason.
He notes that the State does not allege Lukwago attended key meetings in Geneva or Nairobi, solicited weapons, coordinated violence, or participated in any conspiracy.
“Instead, the case rests on the claim that he must have known of the alleged activities due to his leadership of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) and his association with opposition figure Kizza Besigye,” Kiiza said.
According to the lawyer, such reasoning amounts to “guilt by association,” which falls short of the legal threshold required in criminal proceedings.
He emphasized that criminal liability must be proven beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be inferred from political affiliations or professional relationships.
Kiiza further questioned the internal consistency of the prosecution’s case, pointing to claims that a State undercover agent had been monitoring and reporting on alleged activities to military intelligence since 2021.
The agent is said to have recorded meetings and regularly briefed handlers.
“If authorities already had full knowledge through their own surveillance, it raises a fundamental question—what information was Lukwago expected to disclose?” Kiiza posed. “The answer is nothing.”
Under Ugandan law, misprision of treason involves having prior knowledge of a specific treasonous act and deliberately failing to report it to authorities.
Kiiza argues that the charge cannot stand where the State itself admits prior knowledge of the alleged acts.
He also invoked constitutional protections, citing Article 43(2), which prohibits political persecution.
“The law does not criminalise leadership in opposition politics, nor does it punish individuals for associations or beliefs,” he said.
The case has drawn wider attention within legal and political circles, with concerns that its outcome could have far-reaching implications.
Kiiza warned that allowing such a prosecution to proceed could set a precedent where opposition figures face criminal charges without direct evidence.
“If this standard is accepted, any political leader could be exposed to prosecution not for actions taken, but for perceived affiliations,” he stated.
Lukwago, a prominent opposition figure and senior lawyer, has yet to publicly respond in detail to the latest claims.
Meanwhile, the case continues to fuel debate over the independence of the judiciary and the use of criminal law in political disputes in Uganda.