By Insight Post Uganda
Kampala, Uganda
The High Court of Uganda has issued an interim order restraining members of the Uganda Law Society (ULS) from convening an extraordinary general meeting on Friday.
The meeting was meant to discuss alleged gross judicial misconduct, incompetence, bias, irregularities, and illegalities exhibited by Justice Jesse Byaruhanga in the Tilenga oil project case.
This decision comes in response to an application filed by the Attorney General, and it raises concerns about the judiciary’s independence and the ongoing legal battle surrounding the Tilenga oil project.
The controversy centres around a ruling in a case filed by the Attorney General against 42 individuals whose land in Buliisa, Hoima, Kikuube, and other districts is being compulsorily acquired for the Tilenga oil project.
The complainants, including Kisembo Rugadya, Jealousy Mugisa Mulimba, Pityedi Mugisa, Wendi Mulinda, Moses Byarufu, Fred Mwesigwa, and Sarah Atuhairwe, had previously petitioned the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), accusing Justice Byaruhanga of bias.
Judicial Misconduct
According to the complainants’ legal representative, lawyer Eron Kiiza of Kiiza and Company Advocates, the judge’s verdict was delivered suspiciously swiftly, merely four days after the case was filed.
Kiiza argues that none of the affected individuals were given sufficient time to file a defence, and the judge allegedly refused to hear their side of the case despite pleas.
The complainants contend that the ruling favoured the government and TotalEnergies, raising concerns about bias, judicial misconduct, incompetence, partiality, gross irregularity, and abuse of judicial office.
Kiiza emphasizes that the ruling, in violation of Article 26 of the Constitution, empowered the government and TotalEnergies to evict and take possession of over 59 acres of land before compensating the affected individuals.
This has left the affected households deeply disappointed and worried about their lives, families, and future.
Furthermore, Kiiza argues that Justice Byaruhanga relied on Sections 5 and 6 of the 1965 Land Acquisition Act, a law that allegedly does not respect citizens’ rights against deprivation as provided for under the Constitution of Uganda.
Petition for Disciplinary Action
In response to these alleged violations, the complainants, through their lawyer, have submitted a petition dated December 18, 2023, requesting disciplinary action against Justice Byaruhanga.
They express their astonishment that the rule of law is seemingly being compromised due to what they describe as unmistakable judicial bias, partiality, unprofessionalism, incompetence, and other shortcomings by Justice Byaruhanga.
Moreover, they call for the Judicial Service Commission to prohibit Byaruhanga from handling oil-related matters and compensations in the High Court.
Judiciary’s Response
In defence of the judiciary, James Ereemye Mawanda, the Judiciary spokesperson, acknowledges the complainants’ right to petition the Judicial Service Commission if they believe there is cause for investigation.
However, Mawanda asserts that dissatisfied parties have the right to appeal a decision, emphasizing that a legal framework is available to address concerns about a judge’s decision, judgment, or order.
END
English