The High Court Criminal Division has declined to halt the treason trial of opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye and his co-accused despite dramatic scenes in court after Besigye objected to the commencement of the hearing over legal representation.In a ruling delivered on Wednesday, Justice Emmanuel Baguma directed that Besigye, Hajji Obeid Lutale and retired Capt Denis Oola will continue to be represented by three court-appointed advocates, even as Besigye and Lutale pursue efforts to secure lawyers of their own choice.The proceedings briefly turned tense shortly after the case was called when Besigye questioned why the court was proceeding before determining an application seeking a stay of the criminal proceedings.“Is it that you have now ruled on our application for stay of criminal proceedings without hearing it?” Besigye asked before repeatedly banging on the dock.He then raised his voice, insisting that the trial could not proceed.“How can I proceed without representation? Have those lawyers met me? We can’t continue. We shall not allow this trial to proceed,” Besigye said, prompting Justice Baguma to call for order before proceedings resumed.The accused L-R: Captain Denis Oola, Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale in the dockThe prosecution, led by Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Thomas Jatiko and Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, informed the court that it was ready to begin the trial and had brought its first witness.However, Jatiko first sought guidance from the court on the issue of legal representation.The three advocates appointed on state brief – Sylvia Namawejje, Julius Sserwambala and Sarah Awelo – told the court they had travelled to Luzira Prison to meet the accused.Speaking on behalf of the team, Namawejje said Besigye and Lutale declined to meet them, although they were able to consult with Capt Oola, who instructed them to represent him.Oola confirmed meeting the advocates but clarified that they would act alongside his privately retained lawyers. Justice Baguma then invited Besigye and Lutale to explain why they had rejected the court-appointed lawyers.Addressing the court, Besigye said that during the previous hearing on July 15, the accused had been presented with three options to resolve the question of legal representation.He said they subsequently filed an application challenging aspects of the representation process, which had been assigned by the Principal Judge to Justice Simon Peter Kinobe.According to Besigye, the outcome of that application could eliminate the need for state-funded lawyers altogether.He explained that after receiving the Judiciary’s list of 786 advocates eligible for state-funded legal representation, they shortlisted 227 lawyers practising in Kampala. Friends and relatives, he said, had been tasked with obtaining the advocates’ curriculum vitae to enable them to make an informed choice.Besigye complained that most of the CVs focused on academic qualifications and previous employment but provided little information about the advocates’ experience in handling complex criminal cases.“Of these three, it was only Sylvia Namawejje whose CV touches on our case. The other two have certificates in plea bargaining and case settlement. Nothing touches on the expertise relevant to our case,” Besigye submitted.He argued that because they face grave and complex charges, they require advocates with demonstrated experience in handling similar cases.Besigye further told the court that they were surprised when the three advocates appeared at Luzira Prison seeking disclosure materials and preparing for trial before their appointment had been accepted.He urged the court to await Justice Kinobe’s ruling, arguing that Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees every accused person the right to legal representation by counsel of their own choice.He added that if their application failed, they were already at an advanced stage of selecting lawyers from the Judiciary’s approved list and could identify their preferred advocates within one week.Responding for the prosecution, Jatiko argued that while Oola had accepted representation by the three advocates, Besigye and Lutale had simply refused to cooperate with them.He submitted that none of the lawyers who had previously represented the accused had formally withdrawn from the case and noted that legal representation is mandatory in capital offences.“There is nothing stopping the prosecution from presenting its first witness because the case has taken long and it may never take off if the court continues to wait,” Jatiko submitted.Besigye blamed the delays on the State, arguing that the accused had spent months before the General Court Martial before those proceedings were nullified. He recalled undertaking a hunger strike while in detention and said many civilians tried before the military court remained imprisoned despite the Constitutional Court’s decision.“The State should be reminded that it is entirely the State which has delayed this matter,” Besigye argued.He also accused the prosecution of delaying disclosure of evidence and withholding the identities of prosecution witnesses.“All we ask is that the process should be fair and not just fast,” he told the court.Members of the public who attended the court sessionReading from the Constitution, Besigye argued that while the law provides for state-funded legal representation in capital offences, it first guarantees an accused person the right to be represented by an advocate of his or her own choosing.He further submitted that even if court-appointed advocates were retained, they would require adequate time to meet the accused, study the prosecution’s disclosures, prepare the defence and file a certificate of trial readiness before the trial could lawfully commence.Besigye also reminded the court that the accused had filed an application seeking a stay of proceedings pending determination of their appeal, arguing that it should be heard before the criminal trial proceeds.In his ruling, Justice Baguma said he had carefully considered the objections but found no legal basis to halt the trial.The judge observed that since September 1, 2025, the accused had been given ample opportunity to engage advocates of their choice and that the court had never prevented them from doing so.Justice Baguma noted that although Besigye had argued that some of his lawyers had been deported, arrested or intimidated, several advocates and law firms remained formally on record and had not notified the court that they had ceased acting.He specifically cited advocates Kalibbala, Elly Kurahanga, Apollo Katumba, Samuel Muyizzi Tumusiime and Eron Kiiza, together with 13 law firms, as still being on record, with only one law firm having formally withdrawn.The judge held that while the court would respect any decision made by Justice Kinobe on the pending application concerning legal representation, that application could not operate as a bar to the commencement of the trial.He similarly ruled that the pending appeal could not delay the hearing of the criminal case.Justice Baguma held that because the accused are charged with capital offences, legal representation is mandatory under Article 28 of the Constitution.He directed that the three court-appointed advocates remain on the case, while making it clear that the accused are free to retain advocates of their own choice at any stage of the proceedings.“This court is not imposing lawyers. It is complying with the constitutional requirement that persons charged with capital offences must be represented,” Justice Baguma ruled.The judge also confirmed that the three assessors – Sarah Babirye, John Musana and Richard Okello – whose names had earlier been supplied to all parties without objection, would take the oath before the trial proceeds.The post Justice Baguma declines to halt Besigye treason trial over state lawyers dispute appeared first on The Observer Media Ltd.