Can Besigye's Treason Trial Proceed Without Him?

The ongoing treason trial of Dr. Kizza Besigye has reached a critical juncture, raising significant questions about the right to a fair trial in Uganda. Dr. Besigye collapsed in the court dock on July 29, protesting the commencement of his trial without his preferred legal representation. He was subsequently admitted to Mulago National Referral Hospital, where he remains.

Since his collapse, the trial has been adjourned multiple times. State-appointed lawyer Sylvia Namawejje has argued that criminal proceedings typically require the physical presence of the accused. Presiding judge Justice Emmanuel Baguma is awaiting a medical report to determine Dr. Besigye’s fitness to participate.

At the core of this legal dispute is Article 28 of the Ugandan Constitution, which guarantees a fair and public hearing. Legal experts emphasize that this provision entails more than just physical presence; it ensures the accused can understand proceedings, follow evidence, and actively participate in their defence.

“A trial is not a formality performed on an accused — it is something he must be present for,” stated advocate Eron Kiiza, highlighting that illness should not be equated with deliberate absence or misconduct.

While the Constitution allows trials to proceed in certain exceptional circumstances, such as an accused person consenting or absconding, Dr. Besigye’s situation does not fit these criteria. His lawyers argue he has neither consented to a trial in absentia nor absconded; he is simply unwell.

Human rights defender Dr. Livingstone Sewanyana echoed these concerns, stressing that the accused’s physical presence is a fundamental safeguard. Proceeding without him could render the trial vulnerable to appeals, as he would be unable to follow proceedings or instruct his lawyers.

The Uganda Law Society has also cautioned against compromising fundamental safeguards for the sake of speedy justice, particularly in a capital offence like treason. The situation is complicated by Dr. Besigye’s disruptive protest on July 29, which stemmed from his objection to proceeding without lawyers of his choice.

The court’s decision on the next hearing date could set a precedent for handling criminal trials when an accused is medically incapacitated, balancing the state’s interest in justice with the individual’s constitutional rights.

Source: Daily Monitor