High court judge Michael Elubu has released prominent human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza on bail as he awaits the outcome of his appeal against a controversial conviction by the General Court Martial.
The bail ruling, delivered this week, has been met with widespread relief from legal professionals and civil society groups, many of whom had raised concerns about the implications of Kiiza’s detention on the independence of the legal profession.
Under the bail conditions, Kiiza must deposit a Shs 20 million cash bond. His three sureties were bonded at Shs 50 million each, though they are not required to pay the amount upfront. In addition, he must report to the Registrar of the High Court on the first Monday of each month and has been ordered to surrender his passport, restricting any travel outside Uganda without court clearance.
Kiiza was arrested and jailed earlier this year after being found guilty of contempt of court while defending opposition politicians Dr. Kizza Besigye and Haji Obeid Lutale Kamulegeya before the General Court Martial. He was sentenced to serve nine months at Kitalya Mini Max Prison, a decision that sparked both domestic and international criticism.
Kiiza’s legal team swiftly contested the conviction, arguing before the Court Martial Appeal Court that a military tribunal has no jurisdiction over civilians. Their argument leaned heavily on a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in Attorney General v Michael Kabaziguruka (2025), which determined that military courts lack the impartiality required to try civilian cases, rendering such trials unconstitutional.
Efforts to secure Kiiza’s immediate release through a habeas corpus petition were unsuccessful, with Justice Dr. Douglas Singiza dismissing the application due to procedural technicalities. Nonetheless, legal experts note that the bail decision represents a step forward in holding state institutions accountable.
Observers have described Kiiza’s release as a litmus test for judicial independence in Uganda. Legal commentators and rights defenders see the High Court’s move as a reaffirmation of the constitutional limits of military authority and a recognition of the professional rights of legal practitioners.
