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 Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Oral application for constitutional reference during pre-trial criminal proceedings
Decision
Application for constitutional reference refused; case to proceed to preliminary hearing and trial as scheduled

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 an application for constitutional reference, holding that the questions of law proposed by defence counsel did not involve substantial questions of law requiring constitutional interpretation. The court found that case management directions allowing one week for preliminary hearing, permitting weekend prison access, and scheduling trial commencement did not violate the accused persons' constitutional rights under Articles 28 and 44, particularly where the defence had received earlier disclosures dating from January 2026.

Outcome

Application for constitutional reference refused; case to proceed to preliminary hearing and trial as scheduled

Facts

The prosecution made full disclosure on 1st June 2026 regarding the identities of six witnesses previously concealed, though earlier disclosures had been made on 21st January 2026, 4th March 2026, and 11th March 2026. Following the final disclosure, the court made case management directions scheduling a preliminary hearing for 8th June 2026 and trial commencement for 11th June 2026. The court also directed the Deputy Registrar to write to prisons to allow defence lawyers weekend and public holiday access to the accused persons. Defence counsel for the first and second accused persons then applied orally for constitutional reference on three questions of law concerning the adequacy of time for preliminary hearing, weekend access arrangements, and fixing trial dates before preliminary hearing concluded.

Issues

  1. Whether the defence counsel's proposed questions of law constitute substantial questions requiring constitutional interpretation.
  2. Whether a period of 7 days for preliminary hearing is 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 the commencement of trial before the 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 8th June 2026 at 11:00 AM.
  • Prosecution directed to prepare to commence its case on 11th June 2026.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional Law — Constitutional References — Threshold for Reference to Constitutional Court
For a trial court to refer questions to the Constitutional Court under Article 137 of the Constitution, it must first be satisfied that the questions involve substantial questions of law for constitutional interpretation and that a prima facie case has been made out by the requesting party.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Fair Trial Rights — Adequacy of Time for Preparation
Where the defence has been in possession of facts and documents through earlier disclosures dating from several months prior, a period of one week between final disclosure and preliminary hearing may constitute adequate time for preparation and does not per se violate Article 28(3)(c) of the Constitution.
Criminal Law & Procedure — Case Management — Court Directions for Trial Planning
Case management directions scheduling preliminary hearing and trial commencement dates, and facilitating defence access to accused persons on weekends and public holidays, do not violate the constitutional rights of accused persons where made for proper management and planning of the trial.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (1)

  • Sheikh Abdul Karim Sentamu and Another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Col. (Rtd) Dr. Kizza Besigye and Others (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025) [2026] UGHCCRD 14 (1 June 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.