Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo meeting Uganda Law Society team at the event (PHOTO/Courtesy).
KAMPALA – It was a tense moment at the annual New Year Law event organized by the judiciary in Uganda. The executive of the Uganda Law Society, led by Isaac Ssemakadde, had just stormed out of the gathering in protest.
The reason for their abrupt exit was a statement made by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, who claimed that he had ordered Ssemakadde to be disallowed from delivering a speech at the event. Owiny-Dollo’s justification was that the Uganda Law Society needed to apologize to Justice Musa Ssekana, who had been at the center of a controversy surrounding his rulings and alleged judicial misconduct.
Ssemakadde was having none of it. In an interview with the press shortly after the walkout, he vehemently swore not to issue an apology. “We will not apologize for speaking the truth,” he said firmly.
“The judiciary cannot isolate itself from the realities of the country,” Ssemakadde continued. “The courts exist not to be praised but to serve. The Ugandan people have been aggrieved by inefficiencies, corruption, and selective justice for far too long, and they are justified in their hunger for change.”
The roots of the controversy went back to December 2024, when Ssemakadde had issued a strong warning to Principal Judge Flavian Zeija, urging him to distance himself from Justice Ssekana’s actions. Ssemakadde’s remarks came amidst growing concerns over Ssekana’s rulings, which had sparked public outcry and tarnished the judiciary’s image.
The Uganda Law Society had also withdrawn an award that had been given to Justice Ssekana, citing multiple instances of judicial misconduct. Ssemakadde revealed that the ULS Council had found Ssekana responsible for at least 18 documented cases of misconduct, and had called for the Judicial Service Commission to expedite investigations into the complaints.
Ssemakadde also took issue with the judiciary’s reliance on the power of contempt to silence critics. “The offence of scandalising the court is a relic of colonial oppression long discarded by society,” he said. “Why do the Ugandan courts want to hold onto it? The courts should expect scrutiny, not silence. The modern judiciary, if it remains relevant, must embrace dissent, not criminalize it.”
When asked about the implications of the judiciary’s actions, Ssemakadde was blunt. “The judiciary’s aggression and animosity towards the bar and the Ugandan people is a clear indication of its illegitimacy. We will not be intimidated or silenced. We will continue to speak truth to power and demand accountability from the judiciary.”
Ssemakadde also revealed that the Uganda Law Society had begun a campaign to secure bail for all Ugandans who were entitled to it. “We will not rest until every imprisoned Ugandan who is entitled to bail is released,” he said. “This will go a long way in decongesting the jails, reuniting families, and exposing the interests that profit from this misery.”
As the interview drew to a close, Ssemakadde reiterated his commitment to the cause of justice and accountability. “We are the voice of the justice seekers, and we will not be silenced. We will remain an independent bar, committed to the fundamental principles of justice, accountability, and free expression.”
The incident marked a low point in the already-strained relationship between the Uganda Law Society and the judiciary. As the two sides dug in their heels, it remained to be seen how the situation would unfold. One thing was certain, however: Ssemakadde and the Uganda Law Society would not back down in their quest for justice and accountability.
Related
