A fresh legal dispute has emerged in the trial involving Ugandan opposition figure Dr Kizza Besigye after lawyer Eron Kiiza strongly criticised a court directive to introduce state-appointed lawyers for the accused.
The directive, issued by Judge Emmanuel Baguma on Monday, required court officials to provide Besigye and his co-accused with a list of state brief lawyers from which they could select representation.
The judge further ruled that if the accused fail to choose, counsel would be appointed on their behalf, citing constitutional provisions on the right to legal representation.
However, Kiiza has rejected the move, arguing that it undermines fundamental constitutional protections.
In a strongly worded response, he insisted that the right to legal representation of one’s choosing is absolute and cannot be substituted by the state.
“The right of Dr Besigye and Mr Lutale to lawyers of their own choosing is not a courtesy the State may grant or withdraw at pleasure,” Kiiza said. “It is a non-derogable guarantee under Articles 28(3)(d) and 44 of the Constitution.”
He maintained that any attempt to impose state lawyers without the consent of the accused would be unlawful, particularly in circumstances where the accused already have legal teams.
Kiiza further alleged that the absence of Besigye’s preferred lawyers was not voluntary but the result of state interference.
He claimed that members of the defence team had faced intimidation, arrests, and deportation, making it difficult for them to represent their clients.
“What has happened is that those lawyers have been abducted, tortured, deported, threatened, and intimidated,” he said, adding that some advocates were either in detention or had been forced into hiding.
He specifically cited incidents involving senior lawyer Erias Lukwago, who he said was detained over his role in the case, and Martha Karua, who was allegedly deported and blocked from accessing the accused.
Kiiza warned lawyers on the state brief register against accepting the assignment, urging them to resist what he described as political pressure.
He argued that accepting such roles under the current circumstances would compromise the integrity of the legal profession.
“A right violated by force cannot be cured by substituting lawyers chosen by the accused with those selected by the State,” he said.
The case was adjourned to Wednesday, July 15, 2026, as the legal standoff deepens, raising broader concerns over fair trial rights and judicial independence in Uganda.