A fresh standoff has emerged in Uganda’s political and legal landscape after opposition figure Kizza Besigye declined to participate in court proceedings on Friday, citing the absence of his chosen legal team.
Dr. Besigye, who appeared in court alongside Hajji Obeid Lutale over treason charges, reportedly refused to proceed with the hearing after his lawyers—Erias Lukwago and Kenyan senior counsel Martha Karua—were unable to represent him.
Lukwago was reportedly arrested, while Karua was deported back to Kenya prior to the session.
In a statement, the Patriotic Front for Freedom (PFF) accused the state of deliberately interfering with the judicial process.
The party alleged that authorities are attempting to impose state-approved lawyers on the accused in a move aimed at influencing the outcome of the case.
According to PFF, the treason charges against Besigye and Lutale are part of a “pre-determined political scheme” designed to silence opposition voices.
The party further claimed that actions taken against the defense team—including arrests and deportations—reflect a broader pattern of intimidation targeting dissenting figures.
During the court session before Justice Baguma, Besigye reportedly maintained that he would not take part in the proceedings until his legal representation and a pending human rights enforcement application are properly addressed.
His stance signals a deepening legal impasse that could delay the case and intensify scrutiny over judicial independence in Uganda.
The developments add to longstanding tensions between Besigye and the state, with the veteran opposition leader having faced multiple arrests and prosecutions over the years.
Legal analysts note that the right to counsel of choice is a fundamental principle in criminal proceedings, and any perceived interference could raise serious constitutional questions.
PFF has now called on Ugandans to rally behind what it describes as a fight for the rule of law and democratic governance. However, there has been no immediate response from government authorities regarding the allegations.
As the case unfolds, attention is likely to shift to how the courts address the dispute over legal representation—an issue that could significantly shape both the trial and the broader political climate.