Wakilii

Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Another v Uganda (Criminal Application No. 399 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 33 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for mandatory bail arising from treason charges at Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court after initial arraignment before General Court Martial
Decision
Application dismissed; matter to proceed to trial in the High Court under Session Case No. 335 of 2025

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 application for mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution. The Court held that the calculation of the 180-day mandatory bail period commenced from 21 February 2025 when the applicants were charged and remanded at Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court, not from their initial appearance before the General Court Martial on 20 November 2024. The applicants had therefore not clocked the mandatory 180 days at the time of filing the application.

Outcome

Application dismissed; matter to proceed to trial in the High Court under Session Case No. 335 of 2025

Facts

The applicants were arrested on 16 November 2024 in Nairobi, Kenya and brought to Uganda. They were arraigned before the General Court Martial at Makindye on 20 November 2024 and charged with offences relating to security. Following the Supreme Court decision in Attorney General v Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka (31 January 2025) which prohibited trial of civilians in the General Court Martial, the applicants' file was transferred to Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court where they were charged with treason and misprision of treason on 21 February 2025 and remanded to Luzira Government Prison. They filed this application on 28 May 2025 seeking mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, arguing they had exceeded 180 days on remand. They were committed to the High Court for trial on 29 May 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants had clocked the mandatory period of 180 days on remand at the time of filing the application to warrant release on mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution.
  2. Whether the period of remand should be calculated from the date of first remand at the General Court Martial (20 November 2024) or from the date of remand at Nakawa Chief Magistrates Court (21 February 2025).

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Deputy Registrar directed to cause list Session Case No. 335 of 2025 for immediate hearing.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Mandatory Bail — Article 23(6)(c) — Calculation of 180-Day Period — Fresh Charges After Transfer from Military Court
Where an accused person is initially arraigned before the General Court Martial and subsequently charged afresh before a Magistrates Court following transfer of the file after the Supreme Court prohibited trial of civilians in military courts, the 180-day mandatory bail period under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution is calculated from the date of first remand in the civilian Magistrates Court, not from the date of first remand in the General Court Martial.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Mandatory Bail — Evidence — Judicial Notice — Matters in Public Domain
Courts are guided by evidence adduced before them to determine issues in controversy. Judicial notice cannot extend to matters in the public domain where no cogent evidence is presented. A court cannot ascend into the arena of the case to gather evidence not legally presented before it.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Mandatory Bail — Calculation of Remand Period — Source of Evidence
For a court to calculate the time spent on remand for purposes of mandatory bail under Article 23(6)(c) of the Constitution, it must look at the lower court file from which the application arises. The evidence enabling calculation of the date of first remand is the lower court file and record of proceedings.

Legislation cited (7)

Cases cited (5)

  • Attorney General v Hon. Michael Kabaziguruka (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 2021)
  • Tumwesigye Enock v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 133 of 2025)
  • Eron Kiiza v Uganda (High Court Miscellaneous Application No. 118 of 2025)
  • Kinyambira-Miimbere Boniface v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 87 of 2012)
  • Busingye Stephen v Uganda (Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2025)

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 Uganda (Criminal Application No. 399 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 33 (8 August 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.