State Seeks Private Hearing in Besigye’s Trial

A tense legal battle unfolded at Nakawa Magistrates Court on Friday, as the state prosecution’s request for a closed-door hearing in the case against opposition figure Dr. Kizza Besigye sparked a fierce rebuttal from the defense. Chief Magistrate Esther Nyadoi presided over the contentious session, which centered on the cross-examination of Benedict Odiek, the investigating officer.

State Prosecutor Richard Birivumbuka argued for the exclusion of the press and public, citing security concerns for Odiek. He claimed that the officer faced imminent threats and public intimidation, pointing to courtroom songs as evidence. “Appearing in open court jeopardizes his security and compromises the integrity of the investigation,” Birivumbuka asserted, emphasizing the need for the court to shield the officer and protect the ongoing probe.

However, the defense team, led by lawyers Frederick Mpanga and Elias Lukwago, vehemently opposed the state’s request, branding it an abuse of court process. Mpanga dismissed the state’s claims, noting that similar arguments had been previously rejected by the Constitutional Court. He questioned the validity of the alleged threats, arguing that courtroom songs, a routine occurrence during Besigye’s appearances, did not constitute targeted intimidation. “It is strange to claim that singing in court is a form of intimidation when it has happened routinely. Besides, there is doubt that the witness himself expressed such fears,” Mpanga stated.

The defense also highlighted that Odiek’s identity had already been publicly disclosed, rendering the state’s attempt to conceal his details futile. “The state has already exposed the officer by providing his full details, including his picture,” Mpanga added.

Elias Lukwago, Dr. Besigye’s lead counsel, criticized the state’s procedural approach, arguing that genuine security concerns should have been presented through a formal application supported by written evidence and an affidavit. “The state ought to have followed due process instead of making oral arguments without substantive proof,” he argued.

Lukwago further pointed out that the case had been conducted in open court since its inception, including during its proceedings before the Court Martial, which had allowed public attendance. “If the Court Martial permitted public participation, why should this court now exclude the public?” he questioned.

The defense team urged the court to dismiss the state’s application entirely, reiterating that no valid justification existed for excluding the press and public.

Despite the defense’s forceful arguments, Birivumbuka maintained his stance, asserting, “They’ll have a right to appear when the substantive trial of this matter is on.” The magistrate adjourned the court, indicating that a ruling on the application would be delivered at a later date. This legal standoff underscores the heightened tensions surrounding the ongoing case against Dr. Besigye, with both sides fiercely contesting the boundaries of transparency and security within the judicial process.