Judge Matovu: Why I Refused to Grant Erias Lukwago Bail

KAMPALA, Uganda — July 30, 2026 — High Court Judge David Matovu has explained why he declined to grant bail to Erias Lukwago, the President of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF), despite finding that the detained opposition politician had satisfied several important requirements for release.

In a ruling dismissing Lukwago’s bail application, Justice Matovu found that the former Kampala Lord Mayor had a fixed place of abode, presented four substantial sureties and had not been shown to pose a credible risk of interfering with prosecution witnesses.

However, the judge said two major issues stood in the way of granting bail: the absence of a medical report certified by a prison medical officer confirming that Uganda Prisons could not adequately treat Lukwago’s medical conditions, and the fact that the criminal case for which the bail application had originally been filed had effectively ceased to exist after Lukwago was committed to the High Court for trial.

Justice Matovu said these issues left him unable to exercise his discretion in Lukwago’s favour.

Lukwago’s bail application was overtaken by events

One of the central reasons for the dismissal was procedural.

Justice Matovu noted that Lukwago’s bail application had been filed in connection with Makindye Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No. 0762 of 2026, in which Lukwago had been charged with misprison of treason.

But by the time the High Court considered the application, the lower-court proceedings had already ended after Lukwago was committed to the High Court for trial.

“The main purpose for which the Notice of Motion was filed, was for the release of the Applicant on bail pending the hearing and determination of Makindye Chief Magistrates Court Criminal Case No 0762 of 2026,” Justice Matovu said.

The judge pointed out that Lukwago had already pleaded not guilty before the Chief Magistrate and had subsequently been committed to the High Court.

“Perusal of all the affidavits in support or in reply to this application does not mention the fact that on the 16th July, 2026 the learned Chief Magistrate of Makindye committed the Applicant for trial before the High Court,” Matovu said.

According to the judge, the committal had fundamentally changed the legal status of the proceedings.

“This court finds that the committal in essence terminated all proceedings before the Chief Magistrates Court Makindye in Criminal Case No 0762 of 2026,” he ruled.

Justice Matovu further found that the indictment presented to Lukwago during committal proceedings directly related to an existing High Court criminal session case involving Dr. Kizza Besigye and others.

“The Indictment and summary of the case read to the Applicant on 16th July, 2026 directly relate to the proceedings in High Court Criminal Division Criminal Session Case No 35 of 2025 Col (Rtd) Kizza Besigye Kifefe and Others versus Uganda,” the judge said.

Judge acknowledges Lukwago’s right to bail

Despite ultimately refusing bail, Justice Matovu was clear that Lukwago has a constitutional right to apply for release.

The judge noted that Lukwago remains presumed innocent.

“Court agrees with the submissions of counsel, that the Applicant is presumed innocent at this stage and this is the basis of the Applicant’s right to apply for bail pursuant to Article 23(6)(a) of the Constitution,” Matovu said.

He nevertheless stressed that the right to apply for bail does not automatically translate into an entitlement to be released.

“Whereas the Applicant has a right to apply for bail, it is the court which has a discretion to grant the same,” he ruled.

Justice Matovu said the court must exercise that discretion according to established legal principles.

“Judicial discretion is a matter for Court to consider all that is before it and reach a decision without taking into account a reason which is not a legal one,” he quoted from an English case.

“The Court acts within the rules of reason, justice and the law especially the objects and limits intended by the particular legislation.”

He added: “Needless to state that each application must be considered on its own unique circumstances and merits.”

Lukwago had a fixed home, judge finds

On one of the key bail requirements, Justice Matovu ruled in Lukwago’s favour.

Lukwago had told court that he had a fixed residence in Bulwa Zone, Wakaliga, Rubaga Division, Kampala.

The application was supported by an introductory letter from the local area chairperson and Lukwago’s national identification card, both of which indicated his address.

“Court therefore finds that the Applicant has a fixed place of abode within the jurisdiction of this court,” Matovu ruled.

The finding was significant because a fixed place of abode is one of the factors considered under Uganda’s bail guidelines.

Judge clears Lukwago’s four sureties

Justice Matovu also rejected concerns about the suitability of Lukwago’s proposed sureties.

The four people presented included fellow lawyer Chrisostom Katumba, Lukwago’s biological brother Abdul Sewankambo, Mukono Municipality MP Betty Nambooze Bakireke, and Moses Kasibante.

The judge examined their ages, occupations, residences and relationships with Lukwago.

He found that all four had fixed places of abode and had provided local council documentation showing that they could be traced if required.

“These sureties happen to be very close to the Applicant and appear to have understood their roles and duties as sureties,” Matovu said.

Importantly, the State did not challenge their suitability.

“Given the fact that even counsel for the Respondent did not challenge their suitability, this Court finds these four (4) sureties to be substantial,” the judge ruled.

The finding meant that Lukwago had cleared another major hurdle in his bail application.

Medical condition became decisive

The most contentious issue was Lukwago’s health.

According to the application, Lukwago suffers from several chronic conditions, including hypertension, cylindrical bronchiectasis, irreversible persistent anosmia and tinnitus, residual cervical radiculitis, gastroesophageal reflux disease and hiatus hernia.

The court heard that Lukwago had been examined at Mulago National Referral Hospital by a team of five specialist consultants.

The medical team included Dr Norbert Orwotho, Dr Michael Mungoma, Dr Stephen Matovu, Dr Joel Kiryabwire and Dr Edward Kironde, with Dr Charles Kajoba Kimuli, a medical officer from Uganda Prisons Service, present.

The specialists recommended, among other things, that Lukwago undergo a specialised spinal review by his primary spine surgeons in India.

Lukwago’s lawyers relied heavily on those medical findings to argue that his health warranted release from prison.

But Justice Matovu said the medical evidence presented did not meet the specific evidentiary requirement the court needed to rely on it for bail.

The judge noted that the Mulago report had been obtained under the direction of the Chief Magistrate, who had since lost jurisdiction over the case after committal.

“Considering the fact that the report from Mulago Hospital emanated from the orders of the Chief Magistrate who actually received the said report but she has since ceased having jurisdiction in this matter,” Matovu said, “this court is of the view that the Applicant ought to have his medical documents from Mulago hospital forwarded to the prison authorities.”

The purpose, he explained, was to allow the prison authorities to assess whether the condition could be managed within the prison system.

The judge said the prison authorities should act if the situation proved beyond their capacity.

“In the event that they are unable to manage his condition the prison authorities should make an appropriate report to this effect,” he ruled.

‘Medical report certified by prison officer’ missing

Justice Matovu said this was the critical weakness in Lukwago’s medical argument.

“I find the submission of counsel for the Respondent on this issue convincing as the Applicant ought to have his medical report certified by a medical officer of the prison if this court is to rely on this medical evidence,” he said.

The judge therefore found that Lukwago had not provided the particular medical certification required to demonstrate that his conditions could not be treated while in prison.

In his final assessment, Matovu said Lukwago had satisfied most of the requirements for bail.

“Court finds that the Applicant meets most of the requirements to be admitted on bail save for the lack of medical documents certified by the medical officer at the prison where the Applicant is held confirming that the prison medical services are not capable of treating the Applicant,” he ruled.

State’s fears of witness interference rejected

The prosecution had argued that Lukwago was likely to interfere with witnesses if released.

The State also argued that Lukwago was an influential lawyer and politician and therefore had the capacity to interfere with witnesses.

But Justice Matovu was not persuaded.

The State had pointed to the alleged conduct of one of Lukwago’s associates, who it said was still at large and had threatened prosecution witnesses and publicly disseminated evidence disclosed for purposes of a fair trial.

The judge, however, said the State could not simply transfer the alleged conduct of another person onto Lukwago.

“This court accepts the submissions of counsel for the Applicant that this is rather speculative and court cannot impute the associate’s misconduct on the Applicant,” Matovu said.

He further noted that investigations appeared to have been completed.

“Investigations seem to be concluded as Criminal Case No 335 of 2025 and the first prosecution witness took the witness stand yesterday, 29th July, 2026,” he said.

The judge similarly rejected the argument that Lukwago was necessarily a flight risk simply because of the seriousness of the charges and his position.

“Court finds that the Applicant meets most of the requirements to be admitted on bail,” Matovu reiterated.

So why was bail denied?

In the end, Justice Matovu said the decision came down to the missing prison-certified medical evidence and the procedural status of Lukwago’s case.

“Considering the missing medical report duly certified by a person authorized in law to issue such a report,” the judge said, together with the fact that the bail application had been filed in relation to a case that no longer existed before the Magistrates Court, he would not grant bail.

The judge also noted that the Deputy Registrar had not yet allocated Lukwago’s freshly committed case file to a particular High Court judge.

“Deputy Registrar of this court is yet to allocate the freshly committed case file relating to the Applicant to any particular Judge,” Matovu said.

That procedural gap, the judge concluded, made it inappropriate for him to grant bail at that stage.

“This court will exercise its discretion by not granting bail in order to give whichever judge that will be allocated this matter to effectively manage the case,” he ruled.

Case now goes to another High Court judge

Justice Matovu directed the Deputy Registrar to follow up on Lukwago’s committal papers and ensure that the new criminal session case is allocated to a judge in the High Court Criminal Division.

“Court hereby directs the Deputy Registrar to follow up on the committal paper from the lower court and allocate the Applicant’s Criminal Session case to any of the Judges in this division for further case management,” he ordered.

The judge then formally dismissed Lukwago’s bail application.

“This application is hereby dismissed,” Matovu concluded.

The ruling therefore does not amount to a finding that Lukwago is unsuitable for bail on every ground. Indeed, Justice Matovu expressly found that Lukwago had a fixed residence, that his four sureties were substantial, and that the State’s arguments about witness interference and absconding were largely speculative.

Instead, the ruling identifies the missing prison-certified medical assessment and the procedural transition from the Magistrates Court to the High Court as the decisive reasons why bail was not granted in this particular application.

What Judge Matovu’s ruling means for Lukwago

The decision leaves open the possibility of a fresh bail application before the High Court judge who will be assigned Lukwago’s committed criminal case.

That is because Justice Matovu’s ruling was substantially concerned with the status of the earlier Magistrates Court case and the evidentiary requirements surrounding Lukwago’s medical condition.

The judge’s findings also mean that the prosecution’s arguments that Lukwago would interfere with witnesses or flee the country did not, on their own, persuade the court to keep him in custody.

For now, however, Lukwago remains detained as his case moves into the High Court trial process. The Pearl Times will continue to follow developments in Lukwago’s case.

You can read about Lukwago’s misprision of treason case, and an update on the health condition of his political ally Dr Kizza Besigye after he collapsed in the court room Here and There.