A group of 18 Ugandan lawyers has petitioned the Judiciary to allow live streaming of the treason trial of Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale and Capt Denis Oola.
In a statement issued on Monday, the lawyers argued that restrictions on public access to the proceedings undermine the constitutional principle of open justice and questioned the legal basis for the measures.
The lawyers were reacting to revised guidelines issued by the Judiciary on July 29, 2026, which restrict public access to the trial, prohibit unauthorised live coverage and require media organisations seeking to broadcast the proceedings live to submit requests for consideration.
The guidelines also restrict photography and videography inside the courtroom and prohibit the use of communication devices, including mobile phones and tablets, during proceedings.
The lawyers criticised the Judiciary for rejecting calls by the Uganda Law Society (ULS) for the trial to be broadcast live.
“We join Uganda Law Society in calling upon the Judiciary to immediately permit live broadcasting, the use of communication devices, and meaningful public access to these proceedings in accordance with the Constitution,” the lawyers said.
They argued that public scrutiny of court proceedings is essential to maintaining confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the justice system.
“Public scrutiny of a trial naturally acts as a powerful instrument for creating confidence in the fairness, objectivity, and impartiality of the administration of justice,” the statement reads.
The lawyers said justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done, warning that restrictions on public access could fuel speculation and erode confidence in the Judiciary.
“Where citizens cannot freely observe proceedings, speculation displaces fact, suspicion displaces confidence, and trust in the Judiciary erodes,” they said.
The lawyers described the revised guidelines as “constitutionally indefensible”, arguing that the Constitution guarantees an accused person the right to a fair, speedy and public hearing, subject only to permissible restrictions based on morality, public order or national security, and where such restrictions are necessary in a free and democratic society.
They also questioned the decision to place authority over broadcasting requests in the hands of an administrative officer rather than a judicial officer.
“The vesting of broadcasting decisions in an administrative officer rather than a judicial officer is a measure that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” the lawyers said.
They argued that the public, from whom judicial power is derived, has a right to know how that power is exercised.
The lawyers also accused the Judiciary of inconsistency in its handling of public access to criminal proceedings, citing the murder trial of Okello Onyum, where they said the Judiciary recently facilitated a fully public mobile court session.
“A few months ago, the same Judiciary facilitated a fully public mobile court session in the murder trial of Okello Onyum, complete with live broadcasting, public screens, loudspeakers, and seating for over 1,000 spectators,” the lawyers said.
They contrasted the arrangements in the Onyum trial with the restrictions imposed on public attendance at the Besigye proceedings.
“Yet for the Besigye trial, far from providing extra seating and live broadcasts, the Judiciary is restricting public attendance to only the space available inside a colonial-era courtroom,” they said.
The lawyers argued that if live broadcasting could be permitted during the Onyum murder trial, it should not be considered a threat to the administration of justice in the Besigye treason case.
“If live broadcasting is compatible with fair trial rights in a capital murder case conducted at the crime scene before an emotionally charged crowd, it cannot rationally be said to imperil the administration of justice in a treason trial conducted on High Court premises,” they said.
They further argued that the difference in the treatment of the two cases was political.
“The only distinction between Onyum’s case and Besigye’s is political. That distinction has no constitutional warrant,” the lawyers said.
The lawyers called on the Judiciary to permit live streaming of the Besigye trial through its platforms and accredited media organisations, subject to conditions that the trial court may consider necessary.
They proposed safeguards such as pixelating witnesses and introducing time delays where necessary. They also called for additional seating and public screens for people who wish to attend the proceedings physically.
The lawyers further called for clear and consistent mechanisms for live broadcasting to be established and applied equally to all criminal proceedings “without political distinction”.
They said greater transparency would strengthen rather than weaken the Judiciary.
“History teaches that public confidence in the Judiciary is built not through controlled access but through transparency,” they said.
“Courts draw their legitimacy not from secrecy but from scrutiny.”
The statement was signed by Bruce Kyerere SC, Mohamed Mbabazi, Edward Kato Sekabanja, Morgan Muhindo, Peter Arinaitwe, Julius K. Warugaba, Kato Tumusiime, Amanya Timothy, Sarah Kasande, Kakuru Tumusiime, Wynne Mpamabara, Emmanuel Candia, Kalali Steven, Amos Kuuku, Sarah Bireete, Anthony Odur, Lilian A. Drabo and Phillip Karugaba.