Wakilii

Col.(Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale v Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 248 of 2026)

High Court · [2026] UGHCCRD 63 · 2026 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for enforcement of fundamental human rights under Article 50 of the Constitution and the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act
Decision
Application for enforcement of human rights dismissed with no order as to costs

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 held that a human rights enforcement application is distinct from judicial review, and it declined to pronounce on the legality of the administrative immigration decision declaring the applicants' lead counsel a prohibited immigrant, that challenge being properly brought by judicial review. On the fair-hearing complaint, it held that the right to counsel of one's choice under Article 28(3)(d), though part of the non-derogable right to a fair hearing, is not absolute and must be exercised with regard to counsel's availability and expeditious trial. The applicants, represented by some thirteen firms and over fifty advocates and able to use virtual-proceedings mechanisms, had not shown any deliberate impairment of their representation. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Outcome

Application for enforcement of human rights dismissed with no order as to costs

Facts

The applicants are accused persons standing trial in a treason-related criminal session case and had also filed a separate human rights enforcement application concerning their alleged abduction, torture and detention. Their instructed lead counsel, Kenyan Senior Counsel Hon. Martha Karua, arrived at Entebbe International Airport on 22 June 2026 but was singled out, had her telephones taken, was classified a prohibited immigrant on the stated ground of "persona non grata," and was deported to Nairobi the same day without a hearing. Co-counsel Hon. Erias Lukwago was arrested and detained, later facing misprision of treason charges. The 1st respondent, Chief of Defence Forces, published statements on X claiming personal responsibility for the deportation and making threats against the 1st applicant. The applicants sought declarations, injunctions and damages. The respondents contended the immigration decision was a lawful administrative decision challengeable only by judicial review, and that the applicants remained represented by about thirteen law firms and over fifty advocates.

Issues

  1. Whether, in an application for enforcement of human rights, the Court can inquire into and pronounce upon the legality of the decision of the Uganda Citizenship and Immigration Control denying Hon. Martha Karua entry into Uganda.
  2. Whether the applicants' constitutional right to a fair hearing under Article 28 was infringed by the refusal of entry to Hon. Martha Karua and the arrest of Hon. Erias Lukwago, both lead counsel for the applicants.
  3. What remedies are available to the parties.

Orders

  • The Applicants' Supplementary Affidavit filed on 31 July 2026 is struck off the record for having been filed without leave of court.
  • The Court declines to determine the legality of the administrative immigration decision denying Hon. Martha Karua entry, that challenge falling within judicial review.
  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Judicial Review — Distinction from Human Rights Enforcement — Challenge to Administrative Decisions
A direct challenge to the legality of an administrative decision, seeking to have it quashed or set aside, is properly pursued by judicial review and not by an application for enforcement of human rights, even though the same facts may give rise to both an administrative-law challenge and a constitutional-rights claim.
Fair Hearing — Right to Counsel of Choice — Article 28(3)(d) — Not Absolute
Although the right to a fair hearing is non-derogable and the right to representation by counsel of one's choice is a fundamental component of it, that right is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable limitation where its exercise would undermine the orderly and expeditious administration of justice, including having regard to the availability of counsel.
Enforcement of Rights — Burden of Proof — Deliberate Impairment of Representation
The burden lies on an applicant alleging violation of the right to legal representation to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the respondents deliberately interfered with or substantially impaired that right; the burden is not discharged where the applicant retains extensive representation and access to legal services and virtual-proceedings mechanisms.
Fair Hearing — Availability of Virtual Proceedings — Physical Presence of Counsel
Physical presence within Uganda is not, in every circumstance, indispensable to participation in judicial proceedings, since electronic filing and visual-audio link rules permit remote participation; however, the availability of virtual proceedings does not of itself extinguish the constitutional right to counsel of choice.
Personal Liberty — Detention of Counsel — No Immunity from Criminal Law
The mere fact that a person serves as counsel in ongoing litigation does not confer immunity from the ordinary operation of the criminal law, and lawful detention of counsel does not by itself convert into a constitutional violation of another litigant's right to counsel.

Legislation cited (28)

Cases cited (5)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Col.(Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale v Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba and Attorney General (Miscellaneous Application No. 248 of 2026) [2026] UGHCCRD 63 (11 August 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.