Witness secrecy bid tested as Besigye defence grills state attorney

Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo during cross-examination in Col Dr Kizza Besigye's case on April 23, 2026. Photo | Juliet Kigongo

Chief State Attorney Joseph Kyomuhendo on Wednesday came under pressure in the High Court as defence lawyers for opposition figure Dr Kizza Besigye resumed cross-examination, pressing him to justify claims of electronic threats allegedly used to support the State’s bid to conceal key prosecution witnesses in the ongoing treason trial.

Appearing for the second time on the stand,Mr Kyomuhendo struggled to provide specifics about the alleged threats, repeatedly declining to disclose sources, dates, or the identities of those involved, drawing sharp criticism from the defence.

“We have them, but not here,” Mr Kyomuhendo said when asked to produce records of the alleged threats, adding that the information was derived from a digital laboratory.

But when pressed on who captured or analysed the material, he pushed back, saying: “You are pushing me to disclose.”

Mr Erias Lukwago, representing Dr Besigye and his co-accused, Obeid Lutale, pressed for clarity on the nature, storage, and source of the threats.

“In which form are they? How are they stored?” he asked.

“We deal with papers, reports,” Mr Kyomuhendo replied, maintaining that he could not reveal the individuals behind the forensic analysis.

The exchange escalated when Mr Lukwago demanded details of the forensic expert who allegedly identified one Frank Kiherere, described in the State’s affidavit as an accomplice to the third accused and the conduit of threats to witnesses.

“I will ask this question for the very last time,” Mr Lukwago said, adding: “Are you defiant to the command of the law to disclose the particulars of the forensic expert?”

“It’s within my knowledge,” Mr Kyomuhendo responded, declining to answer directly.

Prosecution, led by Chief State Attorney Richard Birivumbuka, quickly intervened, accusing the defence of intimidation.

“It is our responsibility as prosecution to protect our witnesses from questions that belittle or intimidate,” he told court, noting that similar questions had previously been raised.

However, trial judge Emmanuel Baguma allowed the line of questioning to proceed, saying court would determine whether it was repetitive.

Mr Kyomuhendo maintained that all six protected witnesses were under threat, allegedly through Mr Kiherere.

“Yes,” he said when asked whether all had received threats.

But he could not recall when the threats were made, admitting: “I do not remember. I do not have a report with me here.”

Pressed further, he said he learned of the threats after reviewing a case file handed to him by a supervisor, adding that the witnesses had reported the matter to police rather than directly to him.

Tensions rose further when Mr Lukwago asked whether the witnesses were currently in hiding.

“I cannot answer that. Do you want to hunt them down?” Mr Kyomuhendo shot back.

The judge noted the refusal on record, observing that the application itself was intended to avoid disclosure of such details.

The defence also questioned inconsistencies in the State’s position, particularly why protection was being sought for only six witnesses if all were allegedly at risk.

“Why do you seek to protect only six?” Mr Lukwago asked.

“For example, the name you have disclosed…you have put him in jeopardy,” Mr Kyomuhendo responded, prompting the judge to caution against further discussion of witness identities.

On alternative protection measures, Mr Kyomuhendo outlined several options, including testimony through audio-visual link, use of a screened witness box with voice distortion, and physical protection such as safe houses and bodyguards.

However, he insisted those measures were not suitable in this case.

“We are trying to protect them from intimidation, interference, retaliation and reprisal,” he said.

He added: “These measures outside court cannot accommodate that.”

Mr Lukwago also challenged the timing of the State’s application, noting that it was filed only in March 2026 despite the case having been ongoing for months.

“All along you knew this was a universal principle. Your witnesses were safe until then?” he asked.

“That is when we were directed to disclose,” Mr Kyomuhendo replied.

“And they will be safe after testifying?” Mr Lukwago pressed.

“Of course, after they have testified we shall put in place other safety mechanisms,” Mr Kyomuhendo said—a response the defence argued was contradictory.

Background

The dispute stems from a prosecution application seeking to conceal the identities of six out of 10 witnesses in the treason trial against Dr Besigye, Lutale, and UPDF officer Oola.

The State alleges that the accused plotted to overthrow the government between 2023 and November 2024, with meetings reportedly held in several international locations.