The prosecution of a defence lawyer over activities linked to his representation of a political prisoner is raising concerns that Uganda’s legal system is becoming increasingly hostile to the very people responsible for protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

Development Diaries reports that one of Uganda’s most prominent human rights lawyers and a member of opposition leader Kizza Besigye’s defence team, Erias Lukwago, was arrested by soldiers from the Special Forces Command on 15 June while reportedly on his way to serve court documents on Uganda’s Chief of Defence Forces General Muhoozi Kainerugaba, who is also the son of President Yoweri Museveni.

Besigye remains in detention after being abducted from Kenya and prosecuted on treason-related charges, while a Supreme Court ruling declaring military trials of civilians unconstitutional has already been circumvented through subsequent legislation signed by President Museveni.

The prosecution of a defence lawyer in these circumstances raises questions about whether legal and judicial institutions are becoming increasingly vulnerable to political influence.

For many observers, the Lukwago case is the latest sign that institutions meant to restrain power are increasingly being weakened by the very actors they were designed to regulate.

Lawyer becomes accused

According to reports, Lukwago was seized by soldiers in Kampala while carrying out duties connected to Besigye’s legal defence. Days later, General Muhoozi posted photographs of a blindfolded Lukwago on social media and accompanied them with remarks that many rights groups interpreted as intimidation.

Lukwago was subsequently charged with misprision of treason, an offence that accuses a person of knowing about a treasonous plot and failing to report it.

The charge immediately attracted criticism because it appeared closely linked to Lukwago’s role as a defence lawyer.

In most legal systems, lawyers are expected to represent clients regardless of the accusations against them, as the ability of citizens to secure legal representation is one of the foundations of a functioning justice system.

The Besigye connection

To understand why the case has generated concern across East Africa, it is necessary to examine the events that preceded it.

In November 2024, opposition leader Besigye was reportedly abducted from Nairobi by Ugandan operatives and transported to Uganda, where he was charged with treason.

The case immediately attracted international criticism because the transfer bypassed normal extradition procedures and raised questions about Uganda’s respect for regional and international law.

Uganda’s Supreme Court later ruled that military trials of civilians were unconstitutional. Many expected that ruling to strengthen constitutional protections and reinforce judicial independence; instead, President Museveni signed legislation that effectively restored the same practice through another route.

Lukwago’s arrest emerged from this same political and legal environment. His prosecution has therefore been viewed as part of a broader effort to weaken the legal and institutional protections surrounding Besigye and his supporters.

Power without restraint

The Lukwago case also draws attention to General Muhoozi’s increasingly influential role in Uganda’s public affairs.

Uganda’s Constitution prohibits serving military officers from engaging in partisan political activity, but Muhoozi has repeatedly used social media to comment on political opponents, announce government actions, predict legal outcomes, and publicly engage in political disputes.

His statements have often carried more practical weight than those issued through official government channels.

The concern is that these political interventions occur without visible institutional consequences, as no parliamentary committee has publicly sanctioned him or a court order compelled compliance with constitutional restrictions.

Who is responsible?

General Muhoozi bears responsibility for actions and statements directly linked to the arrest and public treatment of Lukwago, President Museveni bears responsibility for overseeing a system in which constitutional safeguards appear increasingly vulnerable to political considerations, while the Director of Public Prosecutions bears responsibility for advancing charges that many legal observers believe threaten the independence of defence counsel.

Regional institutions also face questions.

The East African Community and the African Union have repeatedly expressed commitments to democracy, constitutional governance, and human rights. Yet their responses to documented incidents involving opposition figures, lawyers, and activists have often been limited to expressions of concern.

Rights under pressure

Uganda’s constitution guarantees the right to a fair hearing, freedom of expression, freedom of association, and protection from arbitrary state action, just as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights reinforces many of these same protections.

The challenge is determining whether institutions are willing and able to enforce these rights consistently, and rights survive because institutions defend them when it becomes politically inconvenient to do so.

The human cost

Families of detained opposition figures frequently bear the economic and emotional burden of prolonged legal battles, with women often shouldering the responsibility of sustaining households while detained relatives remain in prison.

In Besigye’s case, his wife, Winnie Byanyima, has repeatedly raised concerns about his health and well-being during detention, with female activists and lawyers also facing particular vulnerabilities.

What must happen next

The Uganda Law Society and the Law Society of Kenya have already spoken out. Other legal associations across Africa should add their voices because the implications of the case extend beyond Uganda.

The East African Community should formally examine whether the treatment of opposition figures and defence lawyers is consistent with the regional body’s commitments to democratic governance and human rights.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights should also consider urgent intervention, given the broader implications for access to justice and fair trial rights.

Most importantly, Ugandan institutions must decide whether constitutional guarantees remain meaningful limits on power or merely symbolic promises.