Veteran opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye, his aide Hajj Obeid Lutale, and Capt. Denis Oola, a newly joined co-accused in the case, have been presented before the General Court Martial at Makindye. The court is tasked with determining whether it holds the necessary jurisdiction to try Dr. Besigye and Hajj Lutale. This development marks another significant turn in the high-profile case, which has drawn both national and international attention due to its political implications.

The questions raised by Team of Lawyers include;

1. Whether Parliament by legislating to confer jurisdiction to military Courts over civilians violated article 79 of the constitution.

2. Whether the acts of the court martial are in violation of article 208 (2)of the constitution which subjects the UPDF under civilian authority. 

3. Does the court martial have the mandate to continue trying civilians when the constitutional court already ruled against that in the cases of Micheal Kabaziguruka, Andrew Karamagi, Captain Amon Byarugaba Vs the Attorney General. 

4. Whether article 128 (3) is being violated by the court martial. 

5. Whether the court martial is independent given the fact that it may adjourn to consult the convening authority which is the High Command.

6. Given the circumstances under which the members of the court martial are appointed by the Commander in Chief and remain serving officers of the UPDF, in a situation where it's the same UPDF prosecuting Dr Besigye, is it possible to be impartial.

YOU CAN ALSO READ: Dr. Besigye Refuses to Submit Declares the Court Has No Authority over him

7. Who decides which civilians should go to the civilian courts and which ones should be taken to the court martial.

8. Whether the government of Uganda violated the constitution by executing MOUs with Kenya to exchange suspects instead of executing an extradition treaty as required by extradition act.

9. Whether the accused rights to legal representation under article 28 (3) were violated when one of the lawyers of the defence team was arrested and imprisoned, Can the "convicted" lawyer continue representing the accused because the lawyer has a specific task with specific instructions to implement.

10. Whether Parliament contravened the constitution when they legislated the UPDF act giving Court martials authority to try offenses committed outside Uganda and yet under article 79 of the constitution, Parliament can only legislate for Uganda and the boundaries of Uganda territory are defined under article 5 and schedule 2 of the constitution of Uganda. 

11.The question of vagueness of the offence described as acts and omissions relating to the security of UPDF.

The Military prosecutor attempted to respond to the questions but the response was mechanical and didn’t make sense hence the adjournment to 3rd Feb 2025.

Will the truth and justice prevail in this general court martial in this high profile case? Join Face up Africa and subscribe to our channel for well investigated articles.