Wakilii

Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another v Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 227 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCRD 40 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application to nullify and terminate criminal trial arising from Criminal Session Case No. 335 of 2025 based on alleged human rights violations
Decision
Application dismissed; criminal trial ordered to proceed

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 court dismissed the application to nullify and terminate the criminal trial on grounds of alleged human rights violations. The court held that the affidavit evidence of violations was speculative and lacked credibility, that granting the application would violate principles of natural justice and the rights of other parties to the criminal trial, and that victims of alleged human rights violations should seek redress through alternative statutory remedies rather than terminating criminal proceedings.

Outcome

Application dismissed; criminal trial ordered to proceed

Facts

The Applicants, facing charges in Criminal Session Case No. 335 of 2025, were arraigned in Chief Magistrates Court on 21 February 2025, committed to High Court on 29 May 2025, and took plea on 1 September 2025. Throughout these proceedings and in several subsequent applications, the Applicants did not raise issues of human rights violations. On 7 June 2026, just before the prosecution was ordered to commence its case on 11 June 2026, the Applicants filed this application seeking to nullify and terminate the trial. They alleged they were unlawfully abducted from Kenya by security agencies, detained incommunicado at Makindye Military Barracks without access to lawyers or medical doctors, held beyond the 48-hour detention limit, and that the 1st Respondent made public statements threatening the 1st Applicant with death. The Applicants were represented by thirteen law firms throughout the main case and this application. The Respondents denied the allegations, stating the Applicants were not arrested or abducted by Ugandan agencies from Kenya and were informed of their rights.

Issues

  1. Whether the Applicants' fundamental rights or freedoms were violated to warrant nullification and termination of the criminal trial?
  2. What remedies are available to the parties?

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Trial in Criminal Case No. 335 of 2025 shall commence with the hearing on 13th of July, 2026 at 11:00am without any further delay.
  • The Deputy Registrar, Criminal Division is directed to issue production warrant for the Applicants for 13th July 2026.
  • Luzira prison is directed to allow the defence team to use approved facilities and gadgets to prepare for trial on 13th July 2026.
  • Applicants to be availed with a hard copy of the ruling since they are in prison.

Rules and key headnotes

Fair Trial Rights — Effect of Constitutional Court Ruling Nullifying Automatic Stay of Criminal Proceedings
Following the Constitutional Court's nullification of section 11(2)(a)-(c) of the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act in Faruku Muhammad v Attorney General, allegations of human rights violations cannot automatically lead to nullification or termination of a criminal trial where other parties' rights need to be protected, as such termination would violate the principles of natural justice and the victim's right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Articles 28 and 44(c) of the Constitution.
Standard of Proof — Criminal Allegations in Civil Proceedings
When serious allegations involving elements of crime are raised in affidavit evidence, including allegations of unlawful abduction, torture, or violation of fundamental rights, such allegations must be proved beyond reasonable doubt rather than on the balance of probabilities, and the party making such allegations bears the duty to adduce cogent evidence to prove them.
Credibility of Evidence — Speculation and Conjecture
A court should not decide a case on mere conjecture or speculation but must decide issues on facts established before it and on law. Speculation is not an aspect of inference that may be drawn from facts; inference is a reasonable deduction from facts, whereas speculation is a mere variant of imaginative guess which should never be allowed by a court of law to fill any hiatus in the evidence before it.
Remedies for Rights Violations — Alternative Recourse
Instead of seeking to nullify or terminate proceedings in a criminal trial on grounds of alleged human rights violations, which would lead to injustice, applicants should seek redress using other statutory avenues provided by law including habeas corpus, judicial review, constitutional petitions, and the supervisory jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, as these safeguards are substantive guarantees designed to ensure remedy where rights have been infringed.
Right to Fair Hearing — Scope and Application to Victims
The right to a fair hearing under Article 28(1) of the Constitution is not confined solely to accused persons but extends to all persons, including victims of crime whose rights to safety, dignity, and restitution are determined during criminal trials. When read together with Article 44(c), which renders the right to a fair hearing non-derogable, any statutory provision that denies victims an opportunity to be heard or undermines their legitimate interests in the adjudicative process must be scrutinized with the highest level of constitutional vigilance.
Abuse of Process — Timing of Human Rights Applications
Where an applicant fails to raise allegations of human rights violations at arraignment, committal, plea-taking, or in several subsequent applications, but only files such an application immediately before the prosecution is ordered to commence its case, such conduct constitutes an afterthought intended to delay trial and amounts to abuse of court process, particularly where the applicant has been represented by multiple law firms throughout the proceedings.
Administration of Justice — Speedy Trial
Under Article 126(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution, justice shall be done to all irrespective of social or economic status and shall not be delayed. Courts have a duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and cannot turn a blind eye to vexatious and baseless allegations of fundamental rights violations that would delay trial, as the speedy trial of accused persons is both their fundamental right and a matter of public interest.

Legislation cited (29)

Cases cited (3)

  • Victor Isonguyo v State (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt 1872) 519
  • Fatunbi v Olanloye (2004) 12 NWLR (Pt 887) 229
  • Faruku Muhammad and Others v Attorney General and Others (Constitutional Petition No. 17 of 2024, Constitutional Reference No. 2 of 2024)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another v Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Others (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 227 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCRD 40 (8 July 2026)
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.