Wakilii

Uganda v Kizza Besigye and Another (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025)

High Court · [2025] UGHCCRD 60 · 2025 Application Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for constitutional reference arising from criminal trial on treason charges
Decision
Application for constitutional reference dismissed; criminal trial to proceed to scheduling and plea taking

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 declined to refer the proposed question to the Constitutional Court, holding that the accused persons had not established a prima facie question of law requiring constitutional interpretation. The court found that Article 28 of the Constitution lays down principles for a fair hearing which the trial judge is mandated to observe, and that allegations of potential bias based on a pending complaint to the Judicial Service Commission were speculative and did not warrant constitutional reference under Article 137(5)(b).

Outcome

Application for constitutional reference dismissed; criminal trial to proceed to scheduling and plea taking

Facts

The three accused persons were indicted on charges of treason and misprision of treason. When the case came up for plea taking, the first and second accused raised concerns that the court lacked jurisdiction and that the trial judge was biased. They stated they had filed a complaint against the trial judge with the Judicial Service Commission seeking his removal from office under Article 144 of the Constitution. The court dismissed these preliminary objections. Counsel for the first and second accused then made an oral application requesting the court to refer a question of law to the Constitutional Court for interpretation, specifically whether a court presided over by a judicial officer against whom a complaint is pending can be considered independent and impartial under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution.

Issues

  1. Whether the court should refer to the Constitutional Court the question of whether a court presided over by a judicial officer against whom a complaint is pending before the Judicial Service Commission can be considered independent and impartial under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution.

Orders

  • Application for constitutional reference dismissed.
  • Matter to be fixed for scheduling and plea taking.

Rules and key headnotes

Constitutional References — Requirements for Referral to Constitutional Court
Before a court refers a matter to the Constitutional Court under Article 137(5)(b) of the Constitution, the court must first be satisfied that a prima facie case exists that an interpretation of a provision of the Constitution is required; it is not sufficient merely to allege that a constitutional provision has been violated.
Constitutional References — Mandatory vs Discretionary Referral
Although Article 137(5)(b) of the Constitution uses mandatory language requiring a court to refer a question if a party requests it, this duty is subject to a question as to the interpretation of the Constitution actually arising in the proceedings; a party cannot compel referral of a matter that does not involve interpretation of the Constitution.
Fair Hearing — Judicial Bias — Pending Complaints to Judicial Service Commission
A pending complaint against a judicial officer before the Judicial Service Commission does not, without more, establish that the court presided over by that officer lacks independence or impartiality under Articles 28(1) and 44(c) of the Constitution; allegations of potential bias based solely on such a complaint are speculative and do not warrant constitutional reference.

Legislation cited (6)

Cases cited (7)

  • Sheik Abdul Karim Sentamu and Another (Constitutional Reference No. 7 of 1998)
  • Attorney General v Milton Obote Foundation Ltd and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1992)
  • Hon. Sam Kuteesa v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 46 of 2011)
  • Ismail Serugo v Kampala City Council and Attorney General (Constitutional Appeal No. 2 of 1998)
  • Uganda v Atugonza Francis (Constitutional Reference No. 31 of 2010)
  • Professor Isaac Newton Ojok v Uganda (Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1991)
  • Tumaini v Republic [1972] 1 EA 441

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

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

Uganda v Kizza Besigye and Another (Criminal Sessions Case 335 of 2025) [2025] UGHCCRD 60 (6 November 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.