Wakilii

Uganda v Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Others (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCRD 14 · 2026 Application Dismissed ✦ AI-generated summary ↓ Download
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application for constitutional reference in criminal trial proceedings
Decision
Application for constitutional reference refused; matter to proceed to preliminary hearing and trial as scheduled

The full judgment

Read the complete, verbatim text of this judgment.

Sign in to read the full judgment

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions — always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court dismissed an oral application for constitutional reference, holding that the defence had not made out prima facie questions of law warranting interpretation by the Constitutional Court. The court found that its case management directions—setting preliminary hearing for 8 June 2026 (seven days after full disclosure) and trial commencement for 11 June 2026—did not violate the accused persons' constitutional rights under Articles 28 and 44. The court noted that while full disclosure of witness identities occurred on 1 June 2026, the defence had received earlier disclosures in January and March 2026, providing adequate time for preparation.

Facts

The prosecution made full disclosure on 1 June 2026, specifically revealing the identities of six witnesses previously concealed. The court then issued case management directions: preliminary hearing on 8 June 2026 and trial commencement on 11 June 2026. Defence counsel for accused persons A1 and A2 applied orally for constitutional reference, proposing three questions concerning whether the seven-day period for preliminary hearing was adequate time under Article 28(3)(c), whether directions for weekend and public holiday access to accused persons was unconstitutional, and whether fixing trial commencement before preliminary hearing concluded violated Articles 28 and 44. The court noted that earlier disclosures had been made on 21 January 2026, 4 March 2026, and 11 March 2026 (redacted), meaning the defence had possessed most facts and documents for several months.

Issues

  1. Whether the proposed questions of law raised substantial questions for constitutional interpretation warranting reference to the Constitutional Court.
  2. Whether a period of 7 days for preliminary hearing constitutes adequate time under Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution.
  3. Whether court directions for counsel to access accused persons on weekends and public holidays is inconsistent with Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution.
  4. Whether fixing commencement of trial before conclusion of preliminary hearing is inconsistent with Articles 28 and 44 of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Application for constitutional reference dismissed.
  • Parties directed to attend preliminary hearing on 8 June 2026 at 11:00 AM.
  • Prosecution directed to prepare to commence its case on 11 June 2026.
  • Deputy Registrar directed to write to prisons to allow lawyers to access accused persons over weekends and public holidays.

Key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional Reference — Test for Reference to Constitutional Court
A reference to the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution is subject to the determination by the trial judge as to whether there is a question for interpretation of the Constitution, and the trial judge must be satisfied that a prima facie case exists or has been made out by the requesting party.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial Rights — Adequate Time for Preparation
Where the defence has received multiple disclosures over several months and full disclosure of witness identities occurs seven days before preliminary hearing, a one-week period for preliminary hearing does not violate the constitutional right to adequate time to prepare a defence under Article 28(3)(c).
Civil Procedure — Case Management — Court Directions for Trial Planning
Case management directions fixing preliminary hearing and trial commencement dates for proper management and planning of a trial do not constitute substantial questions of constitutional law requiring reference to the Constitutional Court for interpretation.

Legislation cited (4)

  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28(3)(c)
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 28
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 44
  • Constitution of Uganda Article 137

Cases cited (1)

  • Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu and Another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.