What Museveni’s words mean for Besigye’s trial

For decades, Dr Kizza Besigye’s political rivalry with President Yoweri Museveni has played out at the ballot box, on the streets and in the courts.

Now, even before the High Court has ruled on the charges against him, the case has become the focus of a hotter debate: what happens when a sitting president publicly comments on the fate of one of the country’s most prominent accused persons?

That debate has gained renewed interest after President Museveni defended Besigye’s continued detention, accused him of delaying his own trial and, according to people familiar with discussions involving the President, reiterated a long-held belief that his former political rival should stay in prison.

The remarks have drawn criticism from lawyers and human rights advocates, who argue they risk blurring the constitutional separation between the Executive and the Judiciary, which is expected to decide cases independently. Museveni’s comments have intensified scrutiny of Uganda’s justice system at a time when Besigye, a four-time presidential candidate and one of the President’s longest-serving political opponents, remains in detention awaiting trial before the High Court.

What began as a criminal prosecution has increasingly evolved into a wider test of judicial independence, raising questions about the right to bail, the guarantee of a fair trial and the extent to which public statements by senior political leaders can shape confidence in the courts.

According to three people familiar with President Museveni’s views on the matter, the President has privately maintained for some time that Besigye should stay in prison longer. One source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said: “He told [name withheld] he is not a bad man, that his security wanted a death sentence.”

The claims could not be independently verified, but they add another dimension to an already contentious case that has attracted significant domestic and international attention.

Besigye’s legal troubles escalated after he was taken from Nairobi, Kenya, where he had travelled to attend the launch of a book by former Kenyan Justice Minister Martha Karua. Following his arrest, Chief of Defence Forces Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba publicly stated that Besigye would be hanged before Heroes Day in 2025, remarks that generated widespread public debate.

In a televised national address last Saturday, Museveni defended the ongoing prosecution and argued that the delays in the case were largely of Besigye’s own making. “He has been refusing trial, misusing the legal system,” the President said.

“Why would this great democrat and human rights fighter, spend so many calories on refusing to come to trial where he has got an opportunity to prove his innocence and expose the undemocratic behaviour of the dictatorship of Museveni and his family?”

Museveni questioned why an accused person would resist having his case heard in court, arguing that prolonged delays weaken confidence in the justice system.

“Why should the legal system for so long allow an accused person to just refuse to be tried?” he asked. “This allowing impunity to continue for so long is responsible for the culture of mob-justice. The population suspects that the police and the Judiciary may not hold the criminal accountable. Hence, the mob-justice, which is unfortunate. The fascist tendencies among some elements of the opposition have for a long period provoked the patriots.”

His comments came shortly after a meeting with leaders of the Inter- Religious Council of Uganda, where, according to sources who attended the discussions, religious leaders raised concerns about Besigye’s continued detention.

The religious leaders reportedly told the President there was growing public perception that Besigye was being imprisoned for reasons beyond the legal process. They appealed to Museveni to allow him to be released on bail while his case proceeds through the courts.

According to the same source, the President rejected that request, maintaining that investigators possessed overwhelming evidence linking Besigye to activities that threatened both Uganda’s national security and his own [President Museveni’s] safety.

The issue of bail has become one of the central legal questions surrounding the case. Under Uganda’s legal system, bail is not a declaration of innocence. Instead, it is a temporary release granted by a court while an accused person awaits trial, subject to conditions intended to ensure they return to court.

Whether bail is granted depends on judicial assessment rather than executive decision. Besigye’s application for bail has been considered before Justice Emmanuel Baguma, who is presiding over the case.

The President argued that some opposition suspects should not automatically receive bail because they may interfere with witnesses. Critics, however, contend that decisions on bail belong exclusively to the courts. The Uganda Law Society, through its president Isaac Ssemakadde, said Museveni’s public comments risk undermining the fairness of ongoing judicial proceedings.

“By publicly speculating on Dr. Besigye’s motives, conduct, and the merits of an ongoing case, he has prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial,” Ssemakadde said in a statement.

“These remarks further aggravate existing contempt allegations involving the President’s son, which are central to the human rights violations forming the basis for the current stay of proceedings.”

The Law Society also challenged Museveni’s criticism of bail, describing it as inconsistent with constitutional protections.

“The President’s renewed attack on bail is an assault on a number of constitutional provisions which guarantee personal liberty and the presumption of innocence,” the statement said.

“Bail is a judicial function, not subject to executive directive. The President’s continued commentary on active trials and judicial processes undermines judicial independence and public confidence in the courts. Banning bail will not protect witnesses. It will instead punish the innocent and shield systemic failures from scrutiny.”

The case has also been marked by changes to Besigye’s legal representation. The report states that former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago, one of Besigye’s senior lawyers, was arrested after earlier reports suggested the President wanted a swift trial.

Martha Karua, another member of Besigye’s legal team was deported after arriving at Entebbe International Airport and declared persona non grata. Both lawyers were accused of masterminding what authorities considered delaying tactics in the case.

A senior official in the People’s Front for Freedom, the political party to which Besigye belongs, rejected claims that the opposition leader was deliberately slowing the proceedings.

“Even if he was, that is beyond his control, he had already instructed his lawyers to prepare for the trial,” the official said.

“But what I think the battle we are now involved in is a battle of public relations. Museveni wants the country to believe that actually Besigye wanted to kill him and overthrow his government. He considers him a very bad person that he does not want the church to pray for or the media to give him positive coverage. His frustration is that the country has refused to regard Besigye as a bad man.”

As the case continues before the High Court, it is increasingly becoming more than a criminal prosecution. It has evolved into a broader test of how Uganda’s justice system balances national security concerns, constitutional rights and judicial independence.

For ordinary Ugandans, the outcome will matter not only because of Besigye’s prominence in national politics but also because the legal principles at the centre of the case, fair trial rights, access to bail and the independence of the courts, apply to every citizen who comes before the country’s justice system.

What happens next will now depend on the High Court’s handling of the trial and any future applications made by the defence, even as public debate over the case continues well beyond the courtroom.