In a significant legal development, a Ugandan military tribunal has brought the charge of “treachery” against former opposition leader Kizza Besigye, his aide Hajji Obeide Lutale, and Captain Denis Ola, a serving Ugandan military general. The tribunal, described by its officials as a “court martial,” is proceeding with these charges, which fall under the umbrella of treason according to Section 23(3)(a) of the Ugandan Penal Code Act. This charge is recognized as a capital offense in Uganda.
The proceedings have drawn criticism on multiple fronts, particularly relating to the adherence to due process. Besigye, who was previously arrested in Kenya on charges of unlawful possession of firearms and terrorism, claims procedural irregularities in the trial, such as improper extradition from Kenya and ambiguities in the charges under both Kenyan and Ugandan military law. The criticism extends to the jurisdiction of the military tribunal, which has been highlighted in past constitutional rulings in Uganda. These rulings contend that military tribunals do not have the jurisdiction to preside over cases involving terrorism and firearm offenses.
Brigadier General Richard Tukacungurwa, the Judge Advocate of the Court Martial, refrained from categorizing the prosecuting body as a “military tribunal,” opting instead for the term “court martial.” Amnesty International has been vocal in expressing its concerns, particularly following the contentious arrest of Lutale’s former lawyer, Eron Kiiza, who faced accusations of contempt of court and was detained without trial. Amnesty’s concerns reflect broader apprehensions regarding the trial’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which imparts certain procedural rights to the accused.
These procedural concerns are not only a domestic issue but have stirred international human rights organizations. Amnesty International and others argue that the death penalty, a potential consequence of a treachery conviction, contravenes the fundamental rights to life and protection from cruel treatment as outlined in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For further developments in this case, access the full article on JURIST.