Last week, Uganda’s courts found themselves at the centre of some of the country’s most consequential legal and political battles. In courtrooms stretching from Kampala to Mbale and Butambala, judges wrestled with questions that cut to the heart of justice, constitutional rights, political accountability and public trust. One ruling dismantled a controversial legal provision that had allowed criminal cases to collapse before evidence was ever tested. Another exposed tensions in the long-running treason case against opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye. Elsewhere, prosecutors subjected bail sureties to unusually intense scrutiny, a court denied mandatory bail to a National Unity Platform official, and a citizenship dispute threatened the parliamentary seat of a sitting Member of Parliament. Meanwhile, investigators from the Inspectorate of Government launched a dramatic anti-corruption operation targeting senior officials in the Office of the Prime Minister. Taken together, the developments offered a revealing snapshot of a justice system grappling simultaneously with constitutional questions, political controversies and allegations of corruption. The most far-reaching decision came from the Constitutional Court, which struck down provisions of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act that had allowed courts to automatically acquit accused persons once violations of their rights were established during criminal proceedings. For years, those provisions had generated debate among lawyers and rights activists. Supporters argued that they acted as a necessary deterrent against torture, illegal detention and other abuses by state agencies. Critics countered that they created a legal shortcut that enabled accused persons to avoid prosecution before evidence had been fully examined. COURT STRIKES DOWN AUTOMATIC ACQUITTALS Last week, a panel of five Constitutional Court judges sided with the latter view. The court declared Section 11(2)(a), (b) and (c) unconstitutional, holding that automatic acquittals undermined the constitutional rights of crime victims and denied courts the opportunity to fully hear and determine criminal cases. The case originated from a petition filed by lawyers Faruku Muhamed, John Musinguzi and Ibrahim Bunyasin against the Attorney General. It was later consolidated with another petition linked to corruption proceedings involving former Namutumba County MP Paul Akamba. Akamba’s case had become emblematic of the debate after charges against him were withdrawn following allegations that he had been abducted, detained incommunicado and tortured after being granted bail.Government lawyers argued that rights violations should be addressed through remedies such as compensation or exclusion of tainted evidence rather than through automatic acquittals. Twenty-two intervenors led by lawyer Abubaker Sekanjako defended the law, insisting it served as a critical safeguard against abuse of power. They pointed to earlier cases, including litigation involving Dr Kizza Besigye in 2007, where proceedings had been halted because of serious rights violations. Professor Christopher Mbazira, appearing as amicus curiae, urged the court to remember Uganda’s history of state abuses. The judges ultimately concluded that justice must serve both accused persons and victims. In a significant interpretation of Article 28(1) of the Constitution, the court held that the right to a fair hearing belongs not only to accused persons but also to victims whose cases deserve full adjudication. Rights violations, the judges ruled, must be addressed robustly, but they do not automatically erase criminal responsibility. Acquittals should come only after evidence has been tested through a complete hearing. If the Constitutional Court delivered the week’s most significant legal ruling, the High Court handling Dr Kizza Besigye’s treason case produced some of its most dramatic courtroom moments. PROSECUTION REVEALS BESIGYE WITNESS LIST The prosecution disclosed a list of witnesses it intends to rely on in the case against Besigye and his co-accused, Hajji Obeid Lutale. The disclosure included more than 800 pages of witness statements and roughly seven hours of audio recordings. Among those expected to testify are senior military officers and intelligence figures, including Maj Gen Richard Otto, Maj Gen Abel Kandiho and Maj Gen James Birungi, who is currently incarcerated. A British businessman also appears on the witness list. The defence immediately objected. Lawyers argued that reviewing such a vast volume of material within a week was unrealistic, particularly given the gravity of treason charges. Justice Emmanuel Baguma nevertheless directed the defence to review the disclosure within seven days and fixed June 8 for further proceedings. Besigye reacted sharply. He instructed his lawyers to challenge the ruling, arguing that the compressed timeline violated his constitutional right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence. He also described the prosecution as politically motivated, accusing it of delaying disclosure for months before suddenly placing the defence under intense pressure to prepare. While attention focused on Besigye’s case in Kampala, another politically sensitive matter unfolded in Butambala. KIVUMBI CASE RETURNS TO COURT Former MP Muhammad Muwanga Kivumbi and 22 co-accused persons, who face terrorism-related charges, returned to court seeking bail. What followed was an unusually rigorous examination of their proposed sureties. State prosecutors led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko and Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka questioned at least 16 sureties about virtually every aspect of their lives. Their occupations, earnings, residences, business activities and understanding of surety obligations all came under scrutiny. Some were asked whether they possessed formal qualifications in trades such as plumbing, electrical work and television repair. Others were required to identify local council leaders and verify signatures. Several acknowledged that they had acquired their skills informally through apprenticeships rather than formal training. Prosecutors appeared determined to establish whether the proposed sureties possessed sufficient credibility and financial capacity to guarantee the accused should they abscond. Unlike standard practice, every surety was required to testify from the witness stand. MUFUMBIRO DENIED BAIL AGAIN Elsewhere in Kampala, the Chief Magistrate’s Court in Kawempe-Kanyanya delivered a ruling with significant implications for the interpretation of mandatory bail. National Unity Platform deputy spokesperson Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro sought release after spending more than 60 days on remand without trial on charges of incitement to violence. His lawyers argued that both the Constitution and the Magistrates Courts Act entitled him to mandatory bail. Acting Chief Magistrate Doreen Ainembabazi agreed that Mufumbiro had satisfied the constitutional threshold. However, she concluded that public interest considerations outweighed his entitlement to release and ordered that he remain in custody. The defence had emphasised Mufumbiro’s professional standing as a lawyer and political leader and presented three sureties, including his father, retired chief magistrate and advocate Moses Baligeya Mufumbiro. Lawyers also highlighted his personal circumstances, telling the court he had recently lost his wife and was now the sole surviving parent responsible for raising eight children. In Mbale, meanwhile, a separate legal battle could determine the future of Namisindwa County MP Metrine Nanzala. The High Court ordered the National Identification and Registration Authority (NIRA) to release certified records relating to two individuals at the centre of a citizenship dispute challenging her eligibility to sit in Parliament. The petition was brought by Apollo Masika, who alleges that Nanzala is not a Ugandan citizen and therefore does not qualify to hold parliamentary office. The dispute centres on family lineage. Masika contends that Nanzala is not among the biological children of Agnes Nelima and the late Michael Walyama. Nanzala disputes that claim and relies on an affidavit from Nelima stating that she is one of five children born to the couple. Justice Dr Farouk Lubega dismissed objections raised against the request for records and ruled that courts are entitled to access NIRA-held information when necessary to resolve disputes before them. He ordered the authority to provide certified copies of the records sought, with costs left to be determined by the outcome of the main petition. As those courtroom battles unfolded, investigators from the Inspectorate of Government launched what may become one of the most closely watched anti- corruption investigations of the year. IGG ARRESTS COMMISSIONERS The operation resulted in the arrest of Patrick Okello, the Commissioner for Refugee Management in the Office of the Prime Minister, alongside five other officials and a Pakistani national. Authorities allege the suspects were involved in an extortion scheme linked to Uganda’s refugee registration process. Among those arrested were Assistant Commissioner for Refugee Management Douglas Asiimwe, Senior Settlement Commandant Mugabe Geoffrey, Head of Information Technology Ekwap Noel, Registration Officer Bweme Henry, Refugee Status Interviewing Officer Nadiope Arnold and Pakistani national Zafar Ahmad. According to preliminary findings, Ahmad is believed to have acted as a key intermediary between refugees and officials allegedly involved in the scheme. Investigators say documents recovered during coordinated searches could prove crucial to the case. All the suspects were taken in for questioning and recorded statements as investigations continue. For Uganda’s courts and accountability institutions, it was a week that touched nearly every corner of public life, constitutional law, political prosecutions, electoral disputes, bail rights and anti- corruption enforcement. The legal battles are far from over. Most of the cases will return to court in the weeks ahead.The post Besigye treason trial heats up appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.