Former Aruu County Member of Parliament Odonga Otto has launched a strong attack on Uganda’s judiciary over the continued denial of bail to opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye, raising fresh questions about judicial independence and the fairness of the justice system. Speaking during an appearance on NBS Frontline, Otto expressed disappointment over Besigye’s continued detention, arguing that the handling of his bail applications had created serious concerns about whether courts were operating independently of political influence.
Otto did not hide his frustration as he delivered his assessment of the judiciary, describing its current state in harsh terms. “I would want to say, without fear or favour, that this would be the worst judiciary in the history of Uganda since independence,” he said. His remarks have added to the growing public debate surrounding Besigye’s legal battles, with the former legislator questioning whether the courts are adequately protecting the rights of individuals facing criminal charges, particularly those involved in opposition politics.
According to Otto, the challenges facing Uganda’s judiciary cannot be separated from the broader question of how power is exercised in the country. He argued that the concentration of authority in the hands of the President has weakened the ability of independent institutions to perform their constitutional responsibilities effectively. “I personally think we are paying the ultimate price of centralisation of power in the hands of the President,” Otto stated, warning that institutions responsible for checking government authority could face difficulties maintaining public confidence when handling politically sensitive cases.
The former legislator singled out Besigye’s continued detention as a major reason for his concerns, pointing to the reported rejection of four bail applications. He questioned why the opposition figure had repeatedly failed to secure temporary release while his legal battles continued. For Otto, the repeated setbacks raise a fundamental question about whether the judiciary can make decisions based purely on the law and the circumstances of individual cases, without being influenced by the political environment surrounding them.
“Now it raises a point to me: Do we have an independent judiciary? I would say no,” Otto declared. He also referred to former Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago while discussing the importance of protecting the right to apply for bail. His argument was that access to legal remedies should not depend on whether a person is politically influential, belongs to the opposition or holds views that differ from those of the government. However, the decision to grant or deny bail remains a matter for the courts to determine under the applicable law and the specific circumstances of each case.
Otto further challenged government officials who believe that Uganda’s existing bail provisions should be changed. He argued that anyone seeking stricter restrictions should use Parliament and the established constitutional process to pursue the necessary legal amendments. In his view, openly changing the law would be preferable to creating uncertainty over how existing provisions are interpreted and applied. He also suggested that house arrest could be considered as an alternative in Besigye’s case if the authorities had legitimate concerns that could be addressed through lawful conditions.
The remarks have reignited discussion about the balance of power between Uganda’s Executive and Judiciary, as well as the public’s right to question decisions made by state institutions. Supporters of greater judicial independence argue that courts must be able to make sensitive decisions without fear or favour, while the legal process requires judges to consider the applicable law, the evidence and the circumstances presented before them. The controversy surrounding Besigye’s bail applications has therefore become part of a wider national conversation about constitutional rights, accountability and confidence in the justice system.
Although Otto’s description of the judiciary represents his personal assessment, his comments have placed renewed attention on the questions surrounding Besigye’s continued detention and the reasons behind the decisions on his bail applications. The central issue remains whether the legal process is being applied consistently and transparently, with the judiciary expected to explain and defend its decisions through the law. As debate continues, the case is likely to remain a focal point for discussions about judicial independence, the right to liberty and the relationship between political power and the administration of justice in Uganda.
About the Author
