Concerns have emerged over the credibility and independence of state-funded legal representation in Uganda, following claims by activist Ronald Muhinda regarding lawyers assigned to opposition figure Kizza Besigye.
Muhinda alleges that the lawyers linked to the state brief scheme—reportedly including Namawejje Sylvia, Awero Sarah, and Selwambara Julius—have a long record of securing convictions, particularly life sentences, in cases prosecuted by the government.
He claims the trio has collectively handled over 30 cases resulting in life imprisonment.
“Gov’t funded state lawyers Judge Emmanuel Baguma imposed on Kizza Besigye have an impressive record of securing Gov’t prosecution life sentence convictions,” Muhinda stated, suggesting a pattern that raises questions about impartiality.
The remarks follow a recent directive by High Court judge Emmanuel Baguma requiring Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, to select defence counsel from a list of state-approved advocates under Uganda’s legal aid framework.
The move came after delays in proceedings linked to the absence of their preferred lawyers.
Muhinda argues that the background of the listed advocates signals a predetermined outcome.
“I am sure you can see where the regime, Baguma and their state lawyers want to end with Besigye—conviction,” he added, further alleging that the lawyers have rarely, if ever, secured acquittals for accused persons.
However, the Judiciary maintains that the state-funded legal representation programme is designed to guarantee access to justice, particularly in serious criminal cases where defendants may lack legal support.
Under the system, accused persons are allowed to choose from a vetted pool of advocates, or have one appointed by the court if they fail to do so.
Besigye, a long-time critic of the Ugandan government, has previously resisted state-appointed counsel, arguing that it undermines his right to a fair trial.
The case continues to draw regional attention, with rights groups closely monitoring developments amid broader concerns about due process and judicial independence in politically sensitive trials.