Defence Team Pushes Back After Eron Kiiza Detention by the Court Martial

The dramatic incident ignited a series of exchanges between the defence team and the court, with several key figures questioning the proceedings.

Tensions ran high in the General Court Martial hearing Dr Kizza Besigye's case, as defence lawyer Eron Kiiza was detained for alleged contempt of court on the orders of Judge Advocate Brigadier-General Richard Tukacungurwa.

The dramatic incident ignited a series of exchanges between the defence team and the court, with several key figures questioning the proceedings.

"Court will handle Eron Kiiza after the proceedings," stated Freeman Mugabe, a member of the court, as the drama unfolded.

He further cautioned the courtroom to remain silent and respectful.

As proceedings continued, defence lawyer Erias Lukwago raised concerns about the court's conduct.

"Don't conduct this as an LC court. You seem to be acting on the orders of the judge advocate. This court is subject to law. Do we have a right of audience?" Lukwago demanded, challenging the court's handling of the legal proceedings.

In response, Judge Advocate Brigadier-General Richard Tukacungurwa firmly asserted his authority. "I am mandated to advise court on all matters of law.

This court is not a tribunal, and to refer to it as such is contempt of court," he declared, emphasizing the need for respect and order within the courtroom.

Ms Martha Karua, a senior counsel representing Besigye, took issue with the treatment of the defence team.

"An advocate should not be refused from approaching court," Karua argued. "The absence of Eron Kiiza is fundamental, and we need to hear from him. There was an intention to assault him. This is a matter of life and death."

Ms Karu, who was only granted a temporary practicing certificate at the weekend, further criticised the court’s handling of the proceedings, pointing out the growing mistreatment of defence lawyers.

"Even the permissions you have granted have been abused. Soldiers keep subjecting us to unnecessary procedures," she said.

"We want to be protected by you, but the assault is increasing on the premises of the court. It’s unfortunate that the Court is going back and forth. It is a bad image," Karua added, calling for greater protection for legal representatives.

The prosecution responded by citing the importance of written instructions from the accused, particularly from Besigye and his co-accused, Lutale.

"On  December 9, Besigye and Lutale notified the authority that they had appointed Mpanga, Katumba, and another lawyer," the prosecution explained.

"Only three are authorized to submit. Without written instructions, some lawyers also filed, but I don't have any instructions from the accused persons."

However, Dr Besigye rejected these claims. "The ones who gave authority are here. They are not the only ones who were given authority. I was not aware that all of them have to be written, but all lawyers have our instruction," Besigye stated, asserting that all lawyers representing him had his consent.

The defence team continued to push for permission to consult with their clients, Dr. Besigye and Lutale, who are being held at Luzira Maximum Prison.

"Even when you go to Luzira maximum prison, you can't see Dr Kizza Besigye," Lukwago lamented.

"He is insisting on certificates, and we are in a grace period. We can practice until March."

Judge Advocate Tukacungurwa was unsympathetic to the defence’s argument.

"Even if the law accepts it, then present the old ones. I am mandated by law. When I ask for certificates, present your old expired certificates," he stated, reinforcing the court's stance on the issue.

Ms Karua, visibly frustrated, addressed the court again. "Allow my submission for which I don’t need your advice," she insisted.

Ms Karua’s comments drew a sharp response from the Judge Advocate. "Martha Karua is in contempt of court," Tukacungurwa declared, further intensifying the tension in the courtroom.

As the exchanges escalated, Mr Lukwago made a final plea. "Chairman, you said none of us at the bar is in the dock. For us to commit to receive a ruling, we need to first hear from them," he requested, urging the court to allow the defence team to consult with their clients before proceeding.

"We don’t have instructions to receive the ruling. We are seeking to be heard," Lukwago added.

Dr Besigye, speaking from the dock, made it clear that Kiiza had the authority to accept the ruling.

"Kiiza has instructions to receive the ruling," Besigye confirmed, backing his lawyer's position.

Despite the mounting tension, the court ultimately adjourned the session for the umpteenth time to allow the defence team time to consult with their clients, leaving the matter unresolved for now.