The People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) has praised one of its founding leaders, Dr Kizza Besigye, describing him as a symbol of resistance in Uganda’s struggle for democracy, constitutional governance and the rule of law.
Speaking to Bbeg Media at the High Court in Kampala before Besigye’s expected court appearance, the party’s secretary for Social Services, Ingrid Turinawe, said the former presidential candidate continues to inspire supporters despite being in detention.
“Despite his detention, Dr Besigye continues to lead us in the struggle. Whatever he has predicted has come to pass. As long as he is still alive, we shall continue to support his cause,” Turinawe said.
A longtime ally of Besigye, Turinawe also criticised Justice Emmanuel Baguma for declining to step aside from the terrorism case.
She argued that the judge’s decision, together with what she described as repeated refusals to grant Besigye bail, had raised questions about whether he would receive a fair hearing. [WATCH VIDEO]
“It is unfortunate that Justice Emmanuel Baguma refused to recuse himself from the case. Our colleague has been denied bail several times, and this raises doubts about whether he will get justice,” she said.
Turinawe further claimed that Besigye had effectively been condemned before his trial began. She said supporters who arrived at the High Court at about 9:00 a.m. found the courtroom, where Besigye and his co-accused were expected to appear, still closed.
“It was disappointing to find that the courtroom was still closed when we arrived. This only adds to our concerns about the handling of the case,” she said.
Dr Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, were arrested in Nairobi and later brought to Uganda, where they are facing terrorism-related charges.
The case has attracted criticism from some human rights activists and legal scholars, who argue that Besigye’s detention has violated his constitutional rights.
Earlier, Besigye said he would not return to court unless Justice Emmanuel Baguma recused himself from hearing the case, arguing that he had lost confidence in the judge’s ability to handle the matter impartially.
