Uganda Law Society President Warns State-Appointed Lawyers in Besigye Trial: “You Will Make History, But Not as Heroes”

By UgandaToday Reporter

KAMPALA — Uganda Law Society President Isaac Ssemakadde has issued a strongly worded public warning to the three lawyers appointed by the State to represent opposition leader Kizza Besigye in his treason trial, questioning both the legality and ethics of accepting the brief after the veteran politician reportedly rejected their services.

In a statement that has reignited debate over the independence of Uganda’s justice system, Ssemakadde addressed lawyers Sylvia Namawejje, Julius Serwambala, and Sarah Awere, urging them to reconsider their role in what he described as a deeply flawed judicial process.

“You Are Not Counsel of Choice”

Ssemakadde argued that the three advocates were never chosen by Besigye and therefore could not legitimately claim to represent his interests.

According to the Uganda Law Society president, the lawyers visited Luzira Prison prepared to assume representation despite Besigye having expressly declined their services.

“You are not counsel of choice. You are state-sanctioned placeholders in a system that has methodically neutralized his actual legal team,” Ssemakadde wrote.

He further claimed that the State had systematically prevented Besigye’s preferred legal representatives from defending him, citing the arrest of Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and the denial of entry into Uganda of Kenyan senior counsel Martha Karua, both of whom have been associated with Besigye’s legal defence.

Questions Over Motives

In his message, Ssemakadde posed a series of pointed questions to the three advocates, asking them to reflect on why they had accepted the assignment.

He questioned whether they were participating merely to satisfy procedural requirements, motivated by financial compensation under the state brief system, or seeking to strengthen their professional credentials by associating themselves with one of Uganda’s most high-profile criminal trials.

Ssemakadde suggested that regardless of their intentions, their participation risked legitimising proceedings that many critics argue have failed to uphold the constitutional guarantee of legal representation by counsel freely chosen by an accused person.

A Trial Under Growing Scrutiny

The remarks come amid mounting domestic and international concern over the handling of Besigye’s prosecution.

The veteran opposition politician has consistently maintained that he does not recognise lawyers imposed upon him by the State, insisting instead on being represented by advocates of his own choosing.

The controversy intensified following Besigye’s dramatic collapse during recent court proceedings after repeatedly pleading for the hearing to stop, an incident that sparked renewed criticism over his health, detention conditions and the management of his trial.

Observers have argued that the events have shifted public attention from the allegations against Besigye to broader questions about due process, judicial independence and the protection of constitutional rights in politically sensitive prosecutions.

“History Will Judge”

Ssemakadde concluded his message with a stark warning to the appointed lawyers, saying that while they would indeed become part of Uganda’s legal history, it would not necessarily be in a favourable light.

He argued that future generations could remember them as lawyers who accepted to serve as “fig leaves” for a process widely criticised as denying an accused person the right to legal counsel of his own choosing.

His comments are likely to further intensify the already polarised debate surrounding Besigye’s treason case, which has become one of Uganda’s most closely watched legal and political proceedings.

Wider Constitutional Questions

Beyond the immediate controversy, legal analysts say the dispute raises fundamental constitutional questions about the limits of state-appointed legal representation.

While courts have a duty to ensure that accused persons facing capital offences are represented, critics argue that this obligation cannot override an individual’s constitutional right to choose his or her own advocate where that choice is reasonably available.

Whether the appointed lawyers continue with the brief—or withdraw in light of mounting criticism—could become another significant chapter in a case that has increasingly evolved into a test of Uganda’s commitment to fair trial guarantees and the rule of law.