Besigye, who is currently detained at Luzira Prison, is reportedly without access to his phone but PFF leaders, including Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and veteran politician Wasswa Birigwa, have sounded the alarm over suspicious activity on his mobile accounts.
Even before the Nakawa Magistrates Court begins hearing the state's application to access the mobile phones of retired Colonel Dr Kizza Besigye and Hajj Obeid Lutale, activists from the People's Front for Freedom (PFF) are raising concerns that the devices have already been hacked.
Besigye, who is currently detained at Luzira Prison, is reportedly without access to his phone.
However, PFF leaders, including Kampala Lord Mayor Erias Lukwago and veteran politician Wasswa Birigwa, have sounded the alarm over suspicious activity on his mobile accounts.
"We were surprised to see a WhatsApp message from Kiiza Besigye in our group chat," said Lukwago. "Yet, he is supposed to be without his phone."
Birigwa added, "On his Instagram, the profile picture has changed. This all points to phone hacking."
The state has formally applied for permission to extract information from four mobile phones belonging to Besigye and Lutale, which were confiscated during their recent arrest in Nairobi, Kenya.
The hearing is set for April 4, 2025.
However, activists argue that unauthorized access to the devices before a court ruling would be a clear violation of the law.
According to Uganda Prisons Standing Orders (Chapter 22), the personal property of detainees must be registered and kept secure until their release.
PFF members fear that any breach of this procedure could be part of a broader effort to incriminate other opposition members.
"We have instructed our lawyers to challenge this matter immediately," Birigwa said. Lukwago added, "What they are doing is illegal and contravenes the law."
Despite the growing outcry, the Uganda Prisons Service has distanced itself from the claims.
"We only received Besigye with his shirt," said prisons spokesperson Frank Mbaine. "He never had a phone. The person who arrested him should answer for that."
As the controversy unfolds, this case is expected to test the state's legal authority over communication interception and its treatment of opposition figures in detention.