Lukwago explains Besigye refusal to take plea

The biggest contention is that Dr Besigye was illegally repatriated, and that rendition is not provided for under the law. You can only repatriate somebody for prosecution using the mechanism provided for under the Extradition Act of 1964, which was never the case.

With the Extradition Act, 1964, there is a mechanism; meaning you've got to have a reciprocal process between Uganda and Kenya, and you have to go through the due process in Kenya, which involves a court order, and a court warrant, which never happened.

So, Dr Besigye was just kidnapped. We cited the Commonwealth decisions of South Africa and the House of Lords in the UK and a couple of other jurisdictions where proceedings of that nature have been declared inalienable.

In South Africa, a number of African National Congress (ANC) party actors have been abducted from neighbouring countries – Swaziland, Sweden, and wherever, and they would be taken back to South Africa for trial and the court said that wouldn't be proper, it would be illegal, and they wouldn't allow it.

So, those cases were cited in some of the Ugandan cases with approval here and we want the court to pronounce itself on the constitutionality of those charges.

The other thing is about offences allegedly committed outside the jurisdiction of Uganda. We are saying UPDF has no universal jurisdiction over cases committed all over the world. That is ridiculous and we are contesting that.

They cited Section 208 and 209, but we insisted and said, look here, the Constitution is paramount, and it is supreme. It clearly stipulates that the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Uganda is restricted to the boundaries here.

Firearms

So, if you allege that Dr Besigye was found in possession of firearms in Kenya, and that offends the UPDF Act, we are saying that is stretching the application of the UPDF law to levels of absurdity because a pistol found in possession of a criminal in Kenya can't be said to be a monopoly of the UPDF.

There are so many people with pistols in Kenya who have munitions, etc.

The other thing is about the defects in the charge sheet, where they are alleging that the pistol is a monopoly of the UPDF. But we are saying a pistol in Kenya cannot be a monopoly of the UPDF, and the charge sheet is defective and, therefore, you can't subject Dr Besigye to a defective charge sheet.

The law allows one to object to a plea being taken under a defective charge sheet or before a court which has no jurisdiction and those are the issues we have raised.

So, what happens is that we are saying if Dr Besigye refuses to take a plea, definitely the court has to pronounce itself on the same, whether they have jurisdiction or not, or if the charge is valid in law, proper in law or not.

If they agree with our submissions, then they strike out the charge sheet and discharge Dr Besigye. If they oppose it and agree with the prosecution, then that will presuppose continuing the trial.

That then gives us another task of seeing how to challenge the same within the mechanisms provided for under the law.

The new charge of treachery has just caught us by surprise. Actually, we have failed to make head and tail of it and how this gentleman, Capt Dennis Olara, has been brought into the picture because all along their contention has been that Dr Besigye was found with Hajj Obeid Lutale at Riverside.

There was no mention of any other person, the one they have added onto the charge sheet is one of the reasons we are opposed to the amendment of the charge sheet to add him [the captain]. So, we are waiting to see the ruling tomorrow [January 14].”

Transcribed by Priscilla Maloba