By Karim Were
BUTAMBALA — The Butambala Grade One Magistrate’s Court has barred media houses from livestreaming or recording proceedings in the case involving former Butambala County Member of Parliament and National Unity Platform (NUP) Deputy President for Buganda, Muhammad Muwanga Kivumbi.
The decision was delivered on Tuesday, August 25, by Grade One Magistrate Aminah Wahab following an application by the prosecution seeking restrictions on live media coverage of theproceedings.
The court, however, did not completely exclude journalists or members of the public from the proceedings. Accredited journalists will continue to attend the hearings and are permitted to report the proceedings through fair and accurate text-based coverage, subject to laws governing contempt of court and the sub judice rule.
Court cites fairness of proceedings
While delivering her ruling, Magistrate Wahab said the court had considered submissions from both the prosecution and defence, as well as the relevant law, before granting the State’s application.
She ruled that live video streaming from inside the courtroom would not be permitted, while the hearing itself would remain open to the public and accredited journalists.
The court also directed lawyers, parties to the case, supporters and members of the public to refrain from publicly commenting on the merits of the case before its conclusion.
The restriction comes as Kivumbi faces charges of inciting violence and managing an unlawful society. The prosecution alleges that the offences were committed on July 9, 2026, while Kivumbi was addressing a public gathering at Bugoye in Gombe Town Council, Butambala District.
Kivumbi has denied the allegations.
Defence challenges media restriction
Kivumbi’s defence team opposed the prosecution’s request, arguing that open court proceedings and media access are important to transparency and the administration of justice.
Speaking after Tuesday’s proceedings, defence lawyer Samuel Muyizi Mulindwa said the legal team disagreed with the decision and intended to challenge it through lawful avenues.
He argued that restricting the media from broadcasting proceedings could set a problematic precedent for public access to court proceedings.
The defence’s position had earlier been supported by other opposition leaders, who argued that court proceedings should remain transparent and accessible to the public.
The debate has consequently raised broader questions about how courts can balance the principle of open justice with the need to protect the integrity and fairness of ongoing proceedings.
Charges against Kivumbi
According to the prosecution, Kivumbi and other individuals who remain at large allegedly planned to organise and incite members of the public to rebel against the Government of Uganda.
The State further alleges that he encouraged members of the public to commit acts of violence against government officials and to support efforts to overthrow the Government.
These allegations have not been proved in court.
Kivumbi appeared before the Butambala court in July and denied the charges before being remanded to Kitalya Prison. His lawyers subsequently applied for bail and presented proposed sureties.
His case has attracted considerable attention because of his position within the NUP and his previous role as an elected representative of Butambala.
Bail application also before court
The media restriction is taking place alongside Kivumbi’s ongoing application for bail.
His lawyers have argued for his release while the case proceeds, with the defence presenting sureties in support of the application. Prosecution has opposed the request.
The court is scheduled to receive further submissions from the defence on September 3, 2026, following the State’s opposition to bail.
Kivumbi has meanwhile been remanded to Kitalya Prison.
Debate over open justice
The court’s decision has generated debate about the role of the media in covering judicial proceedings.
Open hearings are generally intended to promote transparency and public confidence in the administration of justice. At the same time, courts have powers to regulate proceedings where they consider restrictions necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of a case.
In Kivumbi’s case, the court opted for a middle ground: journalists and members of the public can remain present, but live video streaming from inside the courtroom is prohibited.
The court also stressed that journalists must comply with laws relating to contempt and sub judice when reporting the proceedings.
The distinction means that media organisations can continue informing the public about developments in the case, but cannot provide live audiovisual coverage from inside the courtroom.
Political reactions
The decision has attracted criticism from some opposition figures.
Acting NUP President John Baptist Nambeshe criticised Kivumbi’s continued detention and questioned the restrictions surrounding his case. Leader of Opposition in Parliament Joel Ssenyonyi also described the ruling as problematic for the administration of justice.
The reactions reflect the wider political sensitivity surrounding the proceedings, which have drawn the attention of opposition leaders and supporters.
However, the allegations against Kivumbi remain matters for determination by the courts, and he remains entitled to the presumption of innocence unless convicted.
Previous legal proceedings
The current case follows separate proceedings in which Kivumbi had been facing terrorism-related charges before the International Crimes Division of the High Court.
He was granted bail in that matter in July before facing the fresh charges at Butambala Magistrate’s Court.
The new case therefore adds another layer to the legal proceedings involving the former legislator, whose political activities and court appearances have attracted significant public attention.
The prosecution and defence are expected to continue presenting their respective arguments as the court considers the bail application and the substantive case.
What the ruling means for journalists
For news organisations covering the case, Tuesday’s ruling means journalists can continue attending proceedings provided they meet the court’s accreditation requirements.
They can also produce written reports based on what transpires in court, provided their coverage remains fair, accurate and consistent with the law.
However, cameras and other recording equipment cannot be used to livestream proceedings from inside the courtroom under the current order.
The court’s warning against public discussion of the merits of the case also places an obligation on lawyers, political leaders, supporters and other interested parties to exercise caution when commenting on the proceedings.
Conclusion
The Butambala court’s decision introduces tighter controls on audiovisual coverage of the Muwanga Kivumbi case while preserving access for the public and accredited journalists.
As the court prepares for the next stage of the proceedings, attention is expected to remain focused on Kivumbi’s bail application and the prosecution’s evidence supporting the charges.
For now, the court has made clear that while the public can continue to follow the case through accredited media reports, live video streaming and recording from inside the courtroom will not be permitted.
The restrictions are likely to keep the balance between open justice, media freedom and the protection of ongoing judicial proceedings at the centre of debate as the case progresses.
