The Attorney General’s office has defended the nine-month prison sentence handed to lawyer Eron Kiiza by the General Court Martial, arguing that it was a lenient punishment.
This comes as Kiiza’s legal team, led by Peter Mukidi Walubiri, continues to push for his release, citing a Supreme court ruling that prohibits the trial of civilians in military courts.
On Tuesday, lawyers representing both Kiiza and the Attorney General appeared in the High court for a possible ruling. However, proceedings stalled after it emerged that both parties had failed to meet the deadline for submitting their written arguments.
Senior state attorney Johnson Natuhwera, representing the Attorney General, informed the court that while the government had responded to some applications, it had not received copies of others. He claimed they had only found affidavits online but had not been served with the main application. Consequently, Justice Douglas Singiza opted to delay his ruling, stating that the matter required careful consideration.
During oral submissions, Walubiri argued that Kiiza’s conviction was unlawful because the General Court Martial lacked jurisdiction, as established recently by the Supreme court. He contended that the ruling nullifying military court proceedings against civilians should apply retroactively, thereby overturning Kiiza’s conviction.
Walubiri cited precedent from the case of Dr Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale, where fresh charges were filed in civilian courts after military trials were nullified. In response, justice Singiza questioned whether the case should have been filed in the High court’s civil division instead. Walubiri countered that specialized court divisions exist only for administrative purposes and that any High Court judge has jurisdiction to hear the case.
He further claimed that an attempt to file the case in the criminal division had been blocked by a court registrar. Natuhwera, however, maintained that Kiiza was lawfully convicted under Section 169(i)(g) of the UPDF Act, which prescribes up to five years in prison for contempt of court by a lawyer.
He accused Walubiri of misinterpreting the law, asserting that the Supreme court had not abolished the Court Martial but had merely provided guidance on handling such cases. He insisted that the nine-month sentence was lenient and that the Supreme court had upheld Kiiza’s conviction.
Furthermore, he argued that if Kiiza wished to challenge his conviction, he should do so through proper legal channels instead of seeking immediate release. Natuhwera also contended that the Attorney General had been wrongly sued, stating that since the case arose from criminal proceedings, Uganda – possibly represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) should have been the respondent.
However, when justice Singiza pointed out that the DPP was not involved in Kiiza’s case, Natuhwera argued that Kiiza’s legal team had chosen whom to sue. Kiiza’s lawyers maintained that their case before the civil division was based on non-derogable rights, particularly the right to personal liberty.
They emphasized that they were not challenging Kiiza’s sentence per se but arguing that, as a civilian, he had been unlawfully convicted by the General Court Martial. They insisted that, based on the Supreme court ruling, the nullification of military court proceedings should apply retroactively to all affected individuals, including Kiiza. Walubiri urged the court to uphold and enforce the Supreme court’s decision.
Kiiza was convicted on January 9, 2025, by the General Court Martial, chaired by Brig Robert Freeman Mugabe. At the time of his conviction, he had been representing Dr Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya in a case that later escalated to treason charges. Both Besigye and Lutale remain in jail on fresh charges.
Following the court session, hundreds of Kiiza’s supporters gathered outside, singing solidarity songs as prison officers escorted him back to detention due to the lack of holding cells at the court.
