Courtroom fireworks exploded this morning, June 12, as opposition icon Dr. Kizza Besigye and his co-accused returned to face yet another dramatic session at the Nakawa Chief Magistrate’s Court.
What was meant to be a routine mention turned into a tense legal standoff, as senior defence lawyer Erias Lukwago mounted a fierce challenge against the magistrate, accusing her of bias, incompetence, and outright abuse of judicial authority.
With the public gallery packed, Lukwago informed the Court of instructions he received from his clients:
“Your Worship, we have received firm instructions from our clients to raise a formal complaint against you before the Judicial Service Commission,” he declared
The defence’s complaint was loud and clear as the accused had lost total confidence in Magistrate Christine Nantege’s ability to deliver justice. “Our clients have developed a reasonable apprehension that justice will not be served,” Lukwago stressed.
He mentioned Guideline 7 of the Constitutional Recusal Judicial Officers Practice Directions of 2019, Lukwago read the rules aloud, zeroing in on Sub-guideline E, which calls for a judicial officer’s recusal if they display “inappropriate comments” or “apparent bias.”
“Our clients were shocked when you stated in open court that A1 and A2 had waived their right to legal representation just because they asked their lawyers to attend to a more urgent matter,” Lukwago argued.
Adding that : “That is a grave misinterpretation of Article 23 and Article 28 of the Constitution. A person facing a capital offence cannot legally waive their right to legal representation”
The courtroom temperature rose even higher when Lukwago quoted the Constitution word-for-word: “In the case of any offence which carries a sentence of death or imprisonment for life, the accused shall be entitled to legal representation at the expense of the State.”
He added passionately, “Not at any one point can an accused person in a treason case be deemed to have waived their right to a lawyer. That’s not only unconstitutional, it is outright dangerous”
Tension turned to fury when Magistrate Nantege insisted on hearing part of the session in chambers instead of in open court. The defence team objected immediately, branding the move a betrayal of transparency. Still, the magistrate overruled them.
Later in the session, a fresh twist emerged when State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka filed an application seeking access to the accused’s mobile phones. But Lukwago refused to heed.
“Your Worship, we object. These proceedings are tainted. If the law still works in this courtroom, which we’re no longer sure about, then the state cannot respond to a recusal application. The practice directions are clear. The judicial officer may respond, not the prosecution,” Lukwago snapped.
The matter was eventually adjourned to June 26 for the ruling on the recusal.
