By Ben Musanje
The High Court Criminal Division in Kampala has dismissed a bail application filed by opposition politician Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale after the two applicants failed to proceed with the hearing on the scheduled date.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Emmanuel Baguma on July 8, 2026, found that the applicants had failed to prosecute their own application after their lawyers failed to appear in court on the hearing date. The judge ruled that the absence of two particular lawyers could not prevent the matter from being heard, especially considering that the application had been filed by a team of 13 law firms representing the applicants.
The application, registered as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 213 of 2026, arose from Criminal Session Case No. 335 of 2025. Besigye and Lutale had sought to be released on bail under Article 23(6) of the Constitution of Uganda, sections 15 and 16 of the Trial on Indictment Act, and other applicable legal provisions.
The two applicants had asked the court to admit them to bail and release them from remand custody. Their application was jointly prepared and filed by 13 law firms, including Lukwago & Co. Advocates, AF Mpanga Advocates, Kizza Mugisha & Co. Advocates, Alaka & Co. Advocates, Nalukoola Advocates & Solicitors, Matsiko, Wanda & Arinda Advocates, Kintu, Twinimugisha & Co. Advocates, Datum Advocates, Abdalla Kiwanuka Associated Advocates, Baraka Legal Associated Advocates, Tugume-Byensi & Co. Advocates, Arinaitwe Peter and Co. Advocates, and Alto Advocates.
According to court records, the matter was initially scheduled for hearing on June 30, 2026. Both parties appeared in court and agreed to receive hearing dates. Counsel Moses Tugume, who represented the applicants, informed court that he was ready to receive the hearing date, while Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, representing the government, also confirmed his readiness.
Following the agreement, the court fixed the hearing of the bail application for July 3, 2026.
However, when the matter came up for hearing on July 3, the applicants’ lawyers were absent from court. Besigye informed the court that there was a crisis affecting their legal team, which had made it impossible for them to effectively proceed with the application.
The applicants told court that they would not proceed with the bail application until their lead counsel were present. They also pointed out that they had spent about 20 months on remand and needed their preferred legal representatives to handle the matter.
The government opposed the position, arguing that the application had not been filed by individual lawyers but by 13 law firms, meaning any of the lawyers from the firms could represent the applicants. Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka told court that the absence of Senior Counsel Martha Karua and Counsel Erias Lukwago could not stop the case from being heard because the applicants had a large legal team available.
The state further argued that Counsel Tugume had earlier confirmed readiness to receive the hearing date but had not informed court that the applicants would be unable to proceed. The prosecution asked the court to dismiss the application for want of prosecution, relying on the court’s inherent powers under the Judicature Act.
In his ruling, Justice Baguma agreed with the government’s arguments, stating that there was clear evidence that the bail application had been filed by 13 law firms and not by individual advocates.
The judge observed that the applicants could not insist on the presence of one or two specific lawyers from a group of about 50 advocates representing them. He said accepting such an argument would make it difficult for courts to proceed with cases whenever a preferred advocate was unavailable.
Justice Baguma noted that the hearing date had been fixed in open court in the presence of both parties and their lawyers. He said it was therefore improper for the applicants to later claim that they were not ready to proceed.
The judge described the decision by the applicants not to proceed with their application as an abuse of court process, saying courts have a duty to prevent unnecessary delays disguised as concerns about fair hearing.
“It is my considered view that the argument of the applicants that they cannot proceed with this application in absence of their two counsel… would amount to dishonesty which this court cannot condone,” Justice Baguma stated.
The court further held that there was no legal restriction preventing the applicants from presenting their sureties for consideration during the bail hearing. According to the judge, the applicants had an opportunity to proceed with their request for bail but instead chose to oppose their own application by refusing to continue without specific lawyers.
“In the premises, I agree with the submissions of the respondent that the applicants have failed to prosecute this application and the same is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution,” the judge ruled.
The ruling was signed and delivered through the Electronic Court Case Management System (ECCMIS) on July 8, 2026. The court directed that the applicants, who are currently in custody, be provided with a hard copy of the ruling.
The dismissal means that Besigye and Lutale will not benefit from the current bail application unless they take further legal steps or file another application in accordance with the law. (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
