The recent abduction of former Ugandan presidential candidate Dr. Kizza Besigye and opposition activist Obed Lutale from Kenya by Ugandan military operatives has sparked widespread condemnation.
Taken during the launch of Martha Karua’s book in Nairobi, the two were transported to Uganda and arraigned before a military tribunal, raising serious legal and human rights concerns. This incident highlights a disturbing pattern of cross-border abductions, violations of due process, and the growing use of military courts to try civilians.
Constitutional Rights
Uganda’s actions blatantly disregard the legal frameworks of both Kenya and Uganda, as well as regional and international conventions governing extradition, fair trials, and sovereignty. Article 23(1) of Uganda’s Constitution guarantees the right to liberty, prohibiting arbitrary detention, while Article 28 ensures a fair trial before an independent tribunal.
The forcible transfer of Besigye and Lutale, without an official extradition process, directly contravenes these provisions.
Kenya’s Constitution also upholds the right to freedom of movement and protection from arbitrary arrest. The presence of Ugandan security operatives conducting operations on Kenyan soil without legal authorization is not only a breach of Kenya’s sovereignty but also a violation of fundamental constitutional rights.
The East African Community (EAC) Treaty further mandates member states to uphold human rights and the rule of law. Uganda’s actions undermine these commitments, setting a dangerous precedent for regional stability.
The Military Tribunal
One of the most contentious aspects of this case is the trial of civilians in a military tribunal. Uganda’s General Court Martial was originally established to try members of the armed forces under the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) Act. However, in recent years, it has increasingly been used against civilians, particularly opposition figures.
Article 126(1) of Uganda’s Constitution mandates that judicial power be exercised by courts established under the Constitution, yet the military tribunal continues to assert jurisdiction over civilians, despite judicial precedents ruling such actions unconstitutional.
The charges brought against Besigye and Lutale—possession of firearms and ammunition—raise further legal ambiguities. The charge sheet fails to specify whether the alleged offense occurred in Uganda, Kenya, or elsewhere.
If the offense took place in Kenya, Uganda had an obligation to follow proper extradition procedures under the Extradition Acts of both countries. The failure to do so renders the trial illegitimate.
Moreover, if the alleged crime was committed in Kenya, Kenyan law should apply, and the accused should have been tried in Kenyan courts, rather than being forcibly transferred to Uganda.
Beyond the legal irregularities, the trial also raises concerns about judicial independence and due process. Uganda’s military tribunal is structurally compromised, as its judges are active-duty military officers appointed by the Commander-in-Chief, who is also the President. This direct link to the executive branch eliminates any semblance of judicial impartiality.
Additionally, reports indicate that the military court often consults Uganda’s High Command during proceedings, further undermining its independence.
The targeting of political opponents through military courts is not an isolated event. Uganda has a history of using its military tribunal to suppress dissent, despite multiple court rulings affirming that civilians should be tried in civilian courts.
In the landmark case Michael Kabaziguruka v. Attorney General (2017), Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled that military trials of civilians were unconstitutional. However, the General Court Martial has continued to defy this precedent.
The arrest and imprisonment of Besigye’s lawyer, Eron Kiiza, for alleged “contempt of court” further demonstrates the tribunal’s disregard for the right to legal representation. International legal principles, including the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, prohibit the harassment of legal practitioners for performing their duties.
By arresting Kiiza, Ugandan authorities have not only disrupted the defence’s ability to prepare a case but also sent a chilling message to other lawyers handling politically sensitive cases.
This case has broader implications for justice and human rights in Uganda and the East African region. The continued use of military courts to try political opponents erodes public confidence in the judiciary and sets a dangerous precedent for authoritarian overreach.
The international community has long criticized Uganda’s human rights record, and this latest episode further cements concerns about the country’s commitment to the rule of law.
The Need for Action
Addressing these violations requires immediate action at both national and regional levels. The East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has jurisdiction over disputes concerning breaches of the EAC Treaty and could serve as a platform to challenge Uganda’s actions.
Additionally, Uganda’s continued disregard for its own Constitution, as well as regional and international human rights treaties, should prompt intervention from bodies such as the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the United Nations.
There is also a pressing need for legal reforms to prevent further misuse of military tribunals. Uganda must adhere to its own constitutional provisions and ensure that all civilian cases are handled by civilian courts. The General Court Martial should be limited to cases involving members of the armed forces, as originally intended. Judicial independence must also be strengthened by restructuring the appointment process for military tribunal members to eliminate executive interference.
Furthermore, Uganda must be held accountable for its unlawful cross-border operations. Governments in the East African region must establish clear protocols to prevent security operatives from conducting unauthorized operations on foreign soil.
Adhering to formal extradition processes, rather than resorting to abductions, is essential for maintaining regional stability and mutual respect among neighbouring countries.
Conclusion
As Uganda faces growing scrutiny over its legal and human rights violations, its leadership must decide whether to continue down a path of repression or embrace reforms that uphold justice and accountability.
The abduction and military trial of Besigye and Lutale serve as a stark reminder of the urgent need for judicial independence, respect for due process, and adherence to constitutional and international legal principles.
The rule of law must prevail over political expediency if Uganda is to restore trust in its justice system and its standing in the global community.
By Mugenyi Moses