The High Court rejected bail for imprisoned attorney Eron Kiiza recently. Civil division judge Dr. Douglas Singiza denied Kiiza's petition on Monday because Kiiza had previously filed an appeal with the Court Martial Appeals court. Judge Singiza explained that bringing the case to the High Court created an improper filing situation. The General Court Martial headed by Brigadier Robert Freeman Mugabe sentenced Kiiza to nine months behind bars for contempt of court on January 9, 2025.
This sentencing happened shortly before the Supreme Court decided against trying civilians through military courts. Kiiza had represented Dr. Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya at the General Court Martial when authorities arrested him. Their case later escalated to treason charges. Both Lutale and Besigye remain locked up on these new allegations.
Judge Singiza stressed that the High Court held limited authority in this situation and mentioned that Kiiza failed to follow proper legal channels for release requests. The judge declared habeas corpus applications inappropriate for this circumstance and suggested judicial review as a better alternative. He dismissed the case without imposing cost penalties after determining that Kiiza chose incorrect procedures.
Constitutional law expert Peter Mukidi Walubiri led a legal team advocating for Kiiza's immediate freedom during recent proceedings. Walubiri claimed the Supreme Court ruling against military courts should apply backward, invalidating previous decisions. He pointed to Besigye and Lutale as examples after authorities re-filed their charges through civilian courts instead of military systems. Walubiri admitted backward application only affects cases currently under appeal or challenge.
When Judge Singiza questioned filing with the civil division, Walubiri explained that Uganda divides courts merely for administrative efficiency, and any High Court branch maintains general jurisdiction. Walubiri disclosed that their first attempt involved filing with the criminal registry until the registrar rejected their petition outright. Judge Singiza's proposed revision filings may have yielded better results for their legal strategy.
Senior state attorney Johnson Natuhwera represented the Attorney General and defended the conviction by emphasizing military courts function legally under Ugandan constitutional authority. Natuhwera clarified the Supreme Court offered guidance about military court procedures but never eliminated these courts. According to Natuhwera, the UPDF Act Section 169 allows the punishment of advocates for contempt with sentences reaching five years. He characterized the nine-month penalty as merciful compared to the maximum possible punishment.
Natuhwera noted the Supreme Court maintained Kiiza's sentence validity despite ongoing challenges and denied release eligibility during appeals. He emphasized proper procedure required filing case transfers through the criminal division rather than civil courts. The Attorney General also challenged his inclusion as a defendant because criminal proceedings fall outside his official responsibilities. This creates an additional procedural issue with how Kiiza structured his legal challenge beyond the primary jurisdiction questions.
This sentencing happened shortly before the Supreme Court decided against trying civilians through military courts. Kiiza had represented Dr. Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya at the General Court Martial when authorities arrested him. Their case later escalated to treason charges. Both Lutale and Besigye remain locked up on these new allegations.
Judge Singiza stressed that the High Court held limited authority in this situation and mentioned that Kiiza failed to follow proper legal channels for release requests. The judge declared habeas corpus applications inappropriate for this circumstance and suggested judicial review as a better alternative. He dismissed the case without imposing cost penalties after determining that Kiiza chose incorrect procedures.
Constitutional law expert Peter Mukidi Walubiri led a legal team advocating for Kiiza's immediate freedom during recent proceedings. Walubiri claimed the Supreme Court ruling against military courts should apply backward, invalidating previous decisions. He pointed to Besigye and Lutale as examples after authorities re-filed their charges through civilian courts instead of military systems. Walubiri admitted backward application only affects cases currently under appeal or challenge.
When Judge Singiza questioned filing with the civil division, Walubiri explained that Uganda divides courts merely for administrative efficiency, and any High Court branch maintains general jurisdiction. Walubiri disclosed that their first attempt involved filing with the criminal registry until the registrar rejected their petition outright. Judge Singiza's proposed revision filings may have yielded better results for their legal strategy.
Senior state attorney Johnson Natuhwera represented the Attorney General and defended the conviction by emphasizing military courts function legally under Ugandan constitutional authority. Natuhwera clarified the Supreme Court offered guidance about military court procedures but never eliminated these courts. According to Natuhwera, the UPDF Act Section 169 allows the punishment of advocates for contempt with sentences reaching five years. He characterized the nine-month penalty as merciful compared to the maximum possible punishment.
Natuhwera noted the Supreme Court maintained Kiiza's sentence validity despite ongoing challenges and denied release eligibility during appeals. He emphasized proper procedure required filing case transfers through the criminal division rather than civil courts. The Attorney General also challenged his inclusion as a defendant because criminal proceedings fall outside his official responsibilities. This creates an additional procedural issue with how Kiiza structured his legal challenge beyond the primary jurisdiction questions.
