The President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), Isaac Ssemakadde, is facing three legal challenges in different courts today, including civil matters questioning his radical decisions as President.
Other cases are seeking to have him either arrested for contempt of court or jailed for allegedly abusing the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Jane Frances Abodo.
In one case, lawyers including Tony Tumukunde and Joshua Byamazima are challenging Ssemakadde’s Executive Order Number One, which dismissed the Attorney General and Solicitor General’s representatives from the Uganda Law Society Council.
The advocates contend that Ssemakadde did not follow due process, and that these two officials play a pivotal role in the ULS, according to one of the applicants, Tumukunde.
However, the hearing of this case could not take place today because the trial High Court Judge, Esta Nambayo, who was presiding over the case, was last week promoted to the Court of Appeal/Constitutional Court.
As a result, the Deputy Registrar in charge of civil matters, Kintu Zirintusa, adjourned the case to March 17, 2025, hoping a new judge would be appointed.
Lawyer Jude Byamukama was representing the ULS and Ssemakadde, whose actions are being challenged.
Meanwhile, another case was proceeding in the same building against Ssemakadde before Justice Musa Ssekaana.
In this case, lawyers representing another lawyer, Mugisha Hashim Mugisha, want Ssemakadde to be held in contempt of court and be thrown in jail or fined 300 million shillings for allegedly disrespecting judicial officials.
The lawyers argue that this erodes public trust and confidence in the courts.
In this case, they requested the court to allow them to proceed ex parte, as Ssemakadde had neither responded to the application nor appeared in court.
Justice Ssekaana, who is one of Ssemakadde’s alleged victims, allowed the application to proceed ex parte without Ssemakadde and noted that he will rule on the matter by February 28, 2025, if time allows.
The third case against Ssemakadde is before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court, presided over by Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi.
The case was filed by Lawyers Tony Tumukunde and Joshua Byamazima, who have instituted charges of insulting the modesty of a woman after Ssemakadde allegedly abused the DPP, Jane Frances Abodo.
The ruling on whether to issue a warrant of arrest against Ssemakadde or to decline the request is expected to be given electronically, using the Judiciary’s new technology, the Electronic Court Case Management Information System.
Ssemakadde, who was previously summoned to appear at Buganda Road court, chose to challenge the summons in the High Court Criminal Division.
The matter will be heard tomorrow, February 11, 2025. Byamazima and Tumukunde, represented by Lawyer Anthony Bazira, petitioned the court challenging the October 14, 2024 Executive Order Number One issued by Ssemakadde, which expelled the Solicitor General and the Attorney General from the ULS Council, where they had been ex officio members.
Ssemakadde’s order expelled Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka from the ULS Council, citing allegations of professional misconduct and conflict of interest.
Ssemakadde’s decision was aimed at restoring public trust in the legal profession, addressing concerns over integrity and accountability in Uganda’s justice system, and ensuring the independence of the bar.
“The ULS has launched a forensic investigation into allegations against Kiwanuka, including violations of constitutional law related to his private legal practice, financial misconduct related to land compensation amounting to Shs 28.8 billion, and misleading Cabinet on matters of judicial independence,” Ssemakadde said.
Furthermore, Kiwanuka was criticized for imposing fees on digital access to Uganda’s laws, which was seen as an obstacle to justice for ordinary citizens, and for condoning torture and sanctioning military trials for civilians under his tenure, which contradicts Uganda’s international human rights commitments.
Following this decision, Tumukunde and Byamazima petitioned the High Court Civil Division, seeking an order to quash the decision because it was unlawful.
They argued that expelling the Attorney General and Solicitor General disrupted the lawful composition of the council, as prescribed by the ULS Act.
They also indicated that the continued expulsion would diminish the legitimacy of the decisions made by the council, potentially leading to invalid decisions and exposing the ULS to lawsuits and further disputes.
According to Tumukunde and Byamazima, the improperly constituted council could not lawfully exercise its mandate, which is essential for the proper functioning of the ULS.
In the case of contempt of court, Mugisha argues that when Justice Ssekaana blocked the Extraordinary Annual General Meeting for the Uganda Law Society, where elections for new representatives to the Judicial Service Commission were to be held, Ssemakadde allegedly posted disrespectful and prejudicial statements against the trial judge on X (formerly Twitter).
“The writings published by the Respondent are calculated to scandalize and/or lower the authority of court, prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings in Miscellaneous Cause No. 263 of 2024 and to lower the authority of the trial judge,” reads the matter.
In the third case of insulting the modesty of a woman, records show that on November 22, 2024, Byamazima and Tumukunde filed a complaint seeking a summons against Ssemakadde for allegedly insulting the modesty of DPP Lady Justice Jane Frances Abodo.
“All these things like your particular Kerfuffle is then given legal dressing by this vagina from Karamoja,” are the words in contention that were reportedly uttered by Ssemakadde.
He also reportedly said, “I have made a case before that we have a pumpkin for a DPP, but some lawyers continue to pretend that she is the DPP… she is dead wood.” The petitioners submitted a flash drive containing a video of the alleged utterances.
Lawyer Steven Kalali has since petitioned the Constitutional Court, challenging the legality of the charge of insulting the modesty of women, arguing that the law is discriminatory, as it only protects women and not men.
English 