Winnie Byanyima denies secret talks on ‘negotiations for Besigye’s freedom’

What you need to know:

• The testimony exposed difficulties in linking specific statements in the written document to the precise portions of the audio recordings from which they were taken.

The executive director of UNAIDS Winnie Byanyima has firmly dismissed reports of any behind-the-scenes negotiations for the release of her husband, veteran opposition politician Dr Kizza Besigye, describing the ongoing legal proceedings against him as persecution rather than prosecution.

Her remarks come amid reports by a section of the media indicating that a multi-faction committee coordinated by Gen Salim Saleh had been established to negotiate the release of the opposition icon. The reports suggested that Dr Besigye, who is facing treason charges in the High Court, was expected to appoint an opposition team to engage Gen Saleh’s group.

However, writing on her official X platform on October 5, 2026, Ms Byanyima rejected the claim that any dialogue was taking place to secure Dr Besigye's freedom.

"There are no negotiations for Kizza Besigye’s release. His health and his rights are not matters for negotiation," Ms Byanyima posted, adding that her primary focus remains on his well-being and fundamental constitutional rights. "My focus is on his health and on his right to bail and the best possible medical care."

Ms Byanyima also raised serious concerns over the condition and treatment of the veteran politician, revealing that he remains in a fragile state while being subjected to trial without his chosen legal representation. She noted that Dr Besigye remains weak in the hospital and is fighting to recover, yet trial proceedings are moving forward regardless.

Criticizing the conduct of the judicial proceedings, Ms Byanyima stated that Dr Besigye was stripped of his defence team and pointed out that a medical report indicating he was unfit for trial was ignored by the court. She further alleged that Justice Emmanuel Baguma is proceeding in Dr Besigye's absence while hearing “fabrications from a discredited paid mercenary,” with no defence present, concluding that the entire process amounts to persecution rather than prosecution.

Ms Byanyima’s strong statement coincides with ongoing trial proceedings at the High Court in Kampala, where the second prosecution witness in the treason case against Dr Besigye and his co-accused yesterday faced difficulties while seeking to explain and authenticate transcripts prepared from audio recordings allegedly capturing meetings linked to the accused persons.

Mr Medadi Ssentanda, a senior lecturer in the Department of African Languages at Makerere University and coordinator of the university’s Centre for Languages and Communication Services, told the High Court presided over by Justice Emmanuel Baguma that some portions of the recordings were inaudible and could not be accurately transcribed.

Mr Ssentanda led a team of Makerere University specialists that converted recordings obtained by the prosecution into written transcripts. The recordings form a central part of the evidence the State seeks to rely on in the treason case against Dr Besigye, his aide Obeid Lutale, and UPDF Capt Denis Oola. The prosecution alleges that the recordings contain discussions from meetings held in Geneva, Athens, and Nairobi in which the accused persons and others allegedly discussed plans to overthrow the Government of Uganda.

When he returned to court to further explain the transcription report, Mr Ssentanda said the team did not attempt to fill in portions of the recordings that could not be clearly heard, explaining that where the audio was unclear, the transcribers only recorded words and statements they could confidently hear.

The testimony exposed difficulties in linking specific statements in the written document to the precise portions of the audio recordings from which they were taken.

Mr Ssentanda acknowledged that the transcripts did not indicate exact time stamps showing when particular statements were made, creating an additional challenge for the court in establishing whether a statement in the written transcript corresponded exactly with what was said in the audio.

The witness was consequently required to explain portions of the report based on his understanding of the recordings and the work undertaken by his team.

At one point, Mr Ssentanda also indicated that the conditions inside the courtroom made it difficult for him to hear the audio clearly as he attempted to confirm some of the contents of the transcripts.

Despite the challenges raised during the proceedings, Justice Baguma admitted the transcription report as prosecution evidence, marking it as Prosecution Exhibit 3.

In his ruling, Justice Baguma distinguished between the admissibility of a document and the weight that the court would eventually attach to it, noting that the fact that a document had been admitted did not determine how much evidential value it would ultimately carry, as its weight would depend on the circumstances of the case and the prosecution evidence as a whole.

The ruling followed a change in position by the defence, after Justice Baguma noted he had received a September 22 letter from lawyers representing Mr Lutale informing the court that they had abandoned their objection and would instead cross-examine the witness on the transcription report and the methodology used to prepare it.

Follow our WhatsApp channel for breaking news updates and more stories like this.