Wakilii

Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 16 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Bail application arising from criminal charges of treason and misprision of treason pending at Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court
Decision
Applicants remain in custody pending completion of investigations and committal for trial

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

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 the bail application despite finding that the applicants satisfied formal requirements including fixed places of abode, substantial sureties, advanced age, and being first-time offenders. The court held that the extreme gravity of treason charges, the transnational nature of the alleged offences requiring ongoing investigations across multiple jurisdictions, and the likelihood that the applicants might interfere with investigations outweighed the presumption of innocence and right to liberty.

Outcome

Applicants remain in custody pending completion of investigations and committal for trial

Facts

The applicants were charged with treason and misprision of treason at Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court on 21 February 2025. The prosecution alleged that between 2003 and November 2024, in various cities including Geneva, Athens, Nairobi and Kampala, the applicants and others still at large contrived a plot to overthrow the Government of Uganda by force of arms. The applicants had been in custody since 16 November 2024. The first applicant is 68 years old and the second applicant is 65 years old. The first applicant had another pending charge at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court for which he had been released on bail. Investigations into the treason charges were ongoing at the time of the bail application.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants should be admitted to bail pending trial on charges of treason and misprision of treason.
  2. Whether the applicants have satisfied the requirements for bail under Article 23(6) of the Constitution and sections 15 and 16 of the Trial on Indictments Act.
  3. Whether the gravity of the offences charged and the ongoing nature of investigations justify denying bail despite the applicants satisfying formal requirements.

Orders

  • Application for bail dismissed.
  • Applicants to remain in custody pending completion of investigations and committal to the High Court for trial.

Rules and key headnotes

Bail — Discretion of Court — Gravity of Offence
Although an accused person charged with a capital offence is entitled to apply for bail under Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution, the court retains discretion to grant or refuse bail, and the gravity of the offence is a paramount consideration in exercising that discretion.
Bail — Exceptional Circumstances — Advanced Age
Proof of exceptional circumstances is no longer mandatory for bail to be granted, but where advanced age is relied upon, applicants aged 68 and 65 years satisfy the requirement of advanced age under section 16(3)(c) of the Trial on Indictments Act.
Bail — Suitability of Sureties — Age and Relationship
A surety need not be older than the applicant; it is sufficient that the surety is a responsible adult with a connection to the applicant capable of exerting influence to ensure compliance with bail terms, whether through friendship, political association, or family relationship.
Bail — Fixed Place of Abode — Proof Required
An applicant satisfies the requirement of proving a fixed place of abode by furnishing court with a copy of a national identity card and an introduction letter from the LC1 Chairperson; the Bail Guidelines do not require proof of land ownership or tenancy agreements.
Bail — Balancing Rights and Public Interest — Transnational Investigations
Where offences are alleged to have been committed across multiple jurisdictions and investigations are ongoing, the interests of justice may require denial of bail notwithstanding satisfaction of formal requirements, due to the likelihood of interference with investigations and the extreme gravity of the charges.
Right to Liberty — Balancing Individual Rights and Public Interest
The fundamental rights of the individual to liberty and the presumption of innocence must be balanced against the greater public interest in national security and the administration of justice, particularly where grave offences are charged.
Bail — Factors Favouring Applicant — Receding to Background
All factors to a bail applicant's credit, including being a first-time offender, being of advanced age, having a fixed place of abode and substantial sureties, recede to the background when weighed against the extreme seriousness of the offence charged.

Legislation cited (9)

Cases cited (20)

  • Attorney General v Joseph Tumushabe (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2005)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 20 of 2006)
  • Twesigye Charles v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 8 of 2011)
  • Makokha Samuel and 35 Others v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 24 of 2024)
  • Panju v R [1973] EA 282
  • Mugera John v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2025)
  • Tumusiime David v Uganda (Criminal Application HCT-MA No. 29 of 2019)
  • Mugera John v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 2022)
  • Asiimwe Annah v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 81 of 2024)
  • DPP v Col.(Rtd) Dr. Kiiza Besigye (Constitutional Reference No. 20 of 2005)
  • Foundation for Human Rights Initiatives v Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 3 of 2009)
  • Hon. Allan Ssewanyana Aloysius and Hon. Ssegirinya Muhammad v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 18 of 2021)
  • Kawanguzi Nsereko David v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 426 of 2023)
  • Kigongo Faruq v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 7 of 2024)
  • Abindi and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 20 of 2016)
  • Mugyenyi Steven v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 65 of 2004)
  • Kayongo Bashir v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 158 of 2019)
  • Okello Augustine v Uganda (CR-CM No. 6 of 2012)
  • John Muhanguzi Kashaka v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 18 of 2023)
  • Yang Zheng Jun v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application No. 99 of 2013)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Besigye and Another v Uganda (Miscellaneous Application 113 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 16 (11 April 2025)
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.