It’s on life support. Plugged into a system designed to kill it slowly.
Judges on Acting Terms. Courts on Probation. Justice on the Brink.
Here’s what they’ve done:
Invented a system where new judges are appointed on in an acting capacity, with the duration determined at the whims of the appointing authority—yes, like interns at a mobile money kiosk.
Given the President the power to recycle retired judges, no questions asked. No medical. No mental. No morals.
Created performance evaluations for judges like they’re applying for a promotion at a law firm.
That’s right, you’re not day dreaming, the system was rigged. In 2022, the Constitutional Court damned this shrewd “sharp practice” and threw it in our Constitutional History by declaring it unconstitutional in Dr. Busingye Kabumba and Karamagi vs Attorney General.
Good judgment, right? Damn, the government rigged it. It instead created a legal loophole which enabled it to pass these damned Regulations.
Firstly, it appealed against. Secondly the government obtained what is in effect a suspension of the independence of the Judiciary as the Supreme Court delays to decide the Government’s Appeal .
A copy of the decision which suspended the independence of High Court Judges as the government waits for a decision in its own appeal from the above case can be accessed from here:
Okay, let’s dive into the evil in the Regulations. Reg. 29–33 and 31 are the smoking guns. And what they shoot is judicial independence—straight between the eyes.
And Then There’s 2026…
Uganda’s next elections are not just around the corner—they’re rumbling like thunder.
And we know the script:
Mass arrests.
Disappearances.
Violent suppression.
Habeas corpus applications flying like confetti.
Human rights cases lined up like a firing squad.
It will take judges to hear them all.
But what kind of judges?
Not fearless ones. Not permanent ones. Not independent ones.
The Regulations guarantee this:
When the state comes for you, the judge before you may still be “acting,” “probationary,” or “awaiting confirmation.”
You don’t need a judge praying for job security.
You need a judge with balls forged from titanium alloy, ready to grab the State by its ball sac and say:
“Back off. The Constitution says this citizen walks free.”
These Regulations can’t produce that judge. They produce whispering cowards in robes.
But Wait, There’s a Recruitment Cartel Too
They didn’t just kill judicial independence at the appointment level.
They also built a Search and Recruitment Committee—and a Sub-Committee—with a quorum of TWO people.
Let that sink in: Two people can now shortlist Uganda’s judges.
Who are these people?
The Attorney General—yes, the government’s own lawyer.
The Chairperson of the JSC—currently Justice Singiza, who was once branded a “Nazi Judge” by opposition supporters for adjourning Besigye’s habeas corpus case instead of hearing it urgently.
And guess who they kicked out of this process?
The two (2) representatives of the Uganda Law Society.
The very people the Constitution says should be part of the Judicial Service Commission.
It Was Planned. Timed. Executed.
These Regulations were passed while the Uganda Law Society is in court, fighting to elect its representatives.
The plan is clear: Keep them out. Lock the process down. Staff the courts with friendly judges. Control the law from the inside out.
This isn’t just bad law.
It’s a judicial cartel in robes.
And You Think It Doesn’t Affect You?
Wait until your land is taken. Wait until your protest turns into a prison sentence. Wait until your loved one disappears. Wait until the courtroom is the only place left to cry out.
Then you’ll pray that your judge isn’t still auditioning for a contract renewal.
Here’s the Message:
Uganda’s justice system is being rebuilt—not to protect you, but to survive you.
It is no longer about law. It’s about control. It’s about loyalty. It’s about silencing justice before you can even plead for it.
This is the war. This is the moment. This is the alarm.
If you have eyes you better see, and if you have ears you better listen.
They told us Lady Justice was blind. Yet no soul foretold us that she could be gagged, chained by red tape, or forced to perform a scripted dirge for the state—while the true conduct of justice withers in her silent grasp.
This is the tragedy of our times: On one fateful day, under the looming shadow of executive power, the Judiciary refused bail to Dr. Kizza Besigye—not because the law demanded it but because the long finger of the Executive had darkened the halls of justice. The gavel itself seemed to quiver in fear.
In a nation where the very concept of “public interest” is weaponized, such a ruling is not just injustice—it’s a full-throated political press release performed by a bench too timid to uphold the Constitution. Uganda does not merely serve up injustice; we marinate it in irony, wrap it in drama, and serve it with a side of bitter satire.
Then enters the spectacle of The Ssegirinya Case. Hon. Muhammad Ssegirinya—a brave legislator whose voice once roared in opposition—died at a hospital right here in Uganda and was laid to rest in Masaka amid national mourning. Parliament wept. The Electoral Commission hustled. A by-election crowned Counsel Nalukoola as the Honorable Member of Parliament for Kawempe North Constituency. The new MP elect was gazetted and subsequently took the oath of a member of Parliament and yet, the Judiciary clung to absurdity: “We need a death certificate to terminate the criminal case against him.”
Imagine: while Parliament already acknowledged his passing, the Chief Magistrate’s Court demand forensic proof—as if they were guarding against a zombie revival in the halls of justice. Some things, Your Worships, don’t need official state records like a death certificate; they require judicial notice. Ssegirinya is gone. No amount of legal formality can reverse that truth. To be slightly more cheeky and dramatic about it, will the Court issue criminal summons or an arrest warrant to produce the fallen legislator before Court? Yes, that is the absurdity we are talking about.
Meanwhile, within the oppressive corridors of power, a lone rebel rises. President Isaac Ssemakadde—a man both radical and resolute—was denied a podium at New Year Law Day, yet he found a way to become the voice for those silenced. Standing on a cold step outside the hallowed courtroom, he declared:
“The Uganda Law Society doesn’t exist to soothe the egos of the Judiciary but to protect it from Executive Overreach.”
That proclamation was not mere rhetoric—it was a rallying cry. No applause met his words, yet the Constitution itself, dusty and long-forgotten on a shelf, clapped with the thunder of truth.
Adding a surreal twist to this saga, the ruling that doomed Besigye’s bail came on the heels of the anniversary of President Idi Amin’s regime collapse—the day Uganda first broke free from dictatorship. And as if the fates conspired further, on that very day, Justice Gadenya granted a stay of execution for the arrest warrant against President Ssemakadde. A copy of the Ruling by His Lordship Paul W Gadenya can be found here
History, it seems, is writing its own epic: The ancient echoes of liberation mingle with our modern struggles, and even the ancestors of this Republic refuse to sleep.
In the midst of this theatrical legal circus, one voice from the depths of exasperation cut through the clamor:
“The law ceased being an ass. It’s now a pussy.”
Unfiltered, incendiary, and laughably raw—this isn’t a mere quip but a savage indictment. When courts purr in the laps of power rather than bite down on injustice, we can’t pretend neutrality. We must call the rule of law what it is: law taking orders instead of serving justice.
As we stand at the crossroads of history, our hearts burn with the hope for a future where truth rings louder than decree. Like the fabled moment when Pontius Pilate (in his own conflicted way) declared, “I find no guilt in this man,” yet allowed the crowd to dictate a cruel verdict, the Ruling of the Hon. Lady Justice Comfort denying Besigye’s bail Application even after finding that he had satisfied all the requirements reveals to all those who care to see that executive Overreach influenced the outcome of the decision. A copy of the ruling can be accessed here:
So here we are—writing not for mere record but for revolution. This is no ordinary blog post. It’s a legal thriller, a national mirror, a soaring cry that condemns mediocrity and demands accountability.
Justice, if you’re still alive—send us a signal. We’re here.
And for the record—this blog is not an attack on the personal integrity or competence of the judicial officers concerned. It is a constitutional critique—bold, unfiltered, and fully protected as free expression under Article 29 of Uganda’s Constitution. We aim not to tear down but to build a Judiciary worthy of public confidence, not executive approval.
Judicial power in Uganda is not a divine right handed down to judges in solemn robes. It is borrowed authority from the people, and when borrowed power is abused, the lenders have every right to demand accountability. That is what happened when Ugandans erupted in fury over Justice Douglas Singiza’s decision to adjourn a habeas corpus application, effectively prolonging an already illegal detention.
This was not an internet tantrum—it was a constitutional defense mission, executed in real-time by citizens who understand their rights better than some of the people wearing wigs in courtrooms. Article 126(1) of the Constitution is clear:
Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised in conformity with the law and with values, norms, and aspirations of the people.”
So, when the people declare that a ruling has spat on their constitutional values, they are not just complaining—they are executing their duty to keep judicial power in check.
This is not the first time Singiza has found himself at the center of a human rights disaster. When Kakwenza Rukirabashaija, a novelist and torture victim, applied to retrieve his passport for urgent medical treatment abroad, it was Singiza—then Chief Magistrate at Buganda Road Court—who denied him. His reasoning?
👉 “Ugandan hospitals can handle his condition.”
Imagine suffering broken ribs, festering wounds, and open scars from state torture, only for a judge to declare that a hospital in Wandegeya is sufficient to handle what should be a war crimes case. This is the same judge who, three years later, sends Besigye and Lutale back to illegal detention while he thinks about their habeas corpus plea.
The pattern is now too clear to ignore—delayed justice when it benefits the state, procedural gymnastics when fundamental rights are at stake, and then a full-blown judicial meltdown when the public calls it out.
And how did Singiza react to the backlash? Like a true 21st-century authoritarian—he made the ruling about himself. Instead of addressing the constitutional chaos he created, he spent his precious obiter dicta crying about online criticism.
What’s next? Should Ugandans start seeking judicial permission before commenting on court decisions? Must all legal critiques now be submitted in triplicate, with an affidavit from a Senior Advocate?
This is a dangerous trend—a creeping attempt to criminalize judicial criticism and insulate courts from the same public scrutiny that every other arm of government faces.
The executive is insulted daily. The legislature is mocked in real-time. The military is dragged through the mud.
But the judiciary wants to be untouchable?
In Onyango Obbo & Andrew Mwenda v. Attorney General, the Supreme Court made it clear that public officials—including judges—must tolerate criticism. Free speech does not require politeness, and it is not invalidated because it offends the recipient.
Yet, here we are, watching judges compose emotional victim statements in court rulings instead of defending the Constitution.
This is not judicial independence—this is judicial fragility.
Uganda has reached a crossroads: either the judiciary remembers that it serves the people, or the people will remind it in ways it will never forget. Judicial power, like all borrowed authority, can be reclaimed when misused.
This is not a warning. This is a constitutional reminder.
DISCLAIMER: This blog is not intended to mock or attack the person of the Hon. Justice Douglas Ssingiza. It is commentary on the interesting obiter dicta in the Habeas Corpus Application of Dr. Kizza Besigye and Obeid Lutale vs. Attorney General. The Ruling in that case can be found here:
Rtd Col. Dr. Kiza Besigye. Photo credit: Wikipedia
The refusal by the Uganda Law Council to grant Martha Karua, a distinguished Senior Counsel from Kenya, a temporary practicing license to represent Dr. Kizza Besigye in his ongoing trial before Uganda’s General Court Martial has raised significant concerns in my mind about Uganda’s legal system, regional cooperation, and political interference. In this post, I will break down my perspective on why this decision is problematic, critiquing the reasons provided by the Law Council and exploring the broader implications it has for both Uganda and the East African Community (EAC) at large.
Background Context: The Case of Dr. Kizza Besigye
Dr. Kizza Besigye, one of Uganda’s leading opposition figures, was invited to Nairobi by Martha Karua for a book launch. During this event, Besigye was allegedly found with a firearm in his hotel room, which led to his controversial extradition back to Uganda. This case is more than just a legal matter; it raises important issues surrounding Kenya’s sovereignty, extradition laws, and the treatment of political figures within the region. Besigye’s trial before the General Court Martial has been heavily scrutinized, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent stay of a ruling by the Constitutional Court in the case of Michael Kabaziguruka v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 45 of 2016), which had declared that military courts in Uganda have no jurisdiction to try civilians.
The refusal to grant Karua a temporary license, made by the Uganda Law Council, appears to be a politically charged decision, occurring against the backdrop of these ongoing legal and political tensions. As a legal professional, I find this decision troubling, particularly when considering the broader implications for regional integration and the rule of law in Uganda.
—
The Reasons Cited by the Law Council for Denial
The Uganda Law Council gave several reasons for denying Martha Karua a temporary license to practice law in Uganda for Besigye’s defense. Let’s examine these reasons critically and reflect on the potential political undertones and legal inconsistencies involved.
1. Lack of Notarized Documents The Law Council argued that Karua’s application was incomplete because it lacked notarized copies of her practicing certificate, a letter of good standing, nationality documents, and academic qualifications.
My View: This is a procedural issue that could have been easily remedied. Rather than outright denying the application, the Law Council could have requested the missing documents or offered Karua an opportunity to rectify the deficiencies. This decision to deny her based on minor technicalities rather than facilitating her compliance reflects poor administrative practice. A lawyer of Karua’s stature should not be obstructed by such minor procedural issues.
2. Absence of a Valid Practicing Certificate for Erias Lukwago Another reason cited for the refusal was that Karua’s local sponsor, Erias Lukwago, did not have a valid practicing certificate. This was apparently a reason for not processing the application.
My View: The idea that Karua’s application should be rejected because Lukwago did not provide a valid practicing certificate is misguided. Upon reviewing the Judiciary website, it is clear that Erias Lukwago has an active practicing certificate for 2024. The Law Council could have simply verified this information rather than using this as a reason to deny Karua’s application. The failure to make such a simple verification indicates either an oversight or an intentional attempt to complicate the process. This was an avoidable technicality that should not have been used as grounds for denial.
3. No Special Expertise Brought by Karua The Law Council claimed that Karua did not bring any special skills that Uganda’s legal community lacked, suggesting that her involvement in the case was unnecessary.
My View: This argument is deeply problematic. The client has a fundamental right to choose their lawyer, and Karua’s expertise was specifically sought by Dr. Besigye. Her representation was not about fulfilling some special legal need that Ugandan lawyers couldn’t address but rather about providing the client with a lawyer of their choice. This rationale dismisses the right of a person to have the legal representation they feel is best suited to their case. The Council’s argument undermines not only Besigye’s right to choose but also the principles of justice and fairness.
4. Political Undertones The Law Council expressed concerns about the political nature of the case, suggesting that Karua’s involvement was motivated by politics, given her association with Besigye and her public stance as an advocate for democracy and human rights.
My View: This is where I find the decision most troubling. The role of the Law Council is not to pass judgment on the political affiliations of individuals involved in legal proceedings but to ensure that justice is served. Karua’s political opinions or affiliations should have no bearing on the decision to allow her to practice temporarily. The Council’s decision seems to be a veiled attempt to politically sideline a lawyer based on her association with a political opponent of the government. This kind of interference in legal matters not only compromises the integrity of the Law Council but also undermines the fairness of the trial itself.
5. Conduct Before Approval Karua was accused of “holding out” as an advocate before her application had been approved, due to her presence at the court proceedings.
My View: Karua made it clear that she was attending the proceedings as a visiting jurist awaiting approval. She did not mislead the court or claim to be practicing without a license. The accusation seems to be an exaggeration, designed to discredit her professional integrity. This accusation, made without substantiation, adds to the sense that the Law Council was looking for any excuse to deny her application.
6. Logistical Constraints of the Law Council The Law Council mentioned that it could not expedite the application process due to its members’ full-time commitments in other roles, making it difficult to process Karua’s application on time.
My View: This is a failure of institutional management rather than a valid reason to deny an application. If the Law Council is unable to manage the process in a timely manner, it speaks to the need for reform within the institution. A delay caused by the Council’s own logistical constraints should not serve as a reason to deny an individual the right to practice law in Uganda, especially in a case of such significance.
—
The Double Standards of the Law Council
One of the most glaring inconsistencies in this case is the selective application of the Law Council’s rules regarding foreign lawyers. Historical precedents show that the Council has granted temporary licenses to foreign lawyers when it suits the political interests of the government. For instance:
John Khaminwa, a Kenyan lawyer, was allowed to represent President Museveni in a high-profile election petition before the Ugandan Supreme Court in 2001.
Jim Gash, an American lawyer, was granted a temporary license to represent a client in Uganda, working on juvenile justice reform.
These instances clearly demonstrate that the Law Council is capable of granting temporary licenses to foreign lawyers when it is politically convenient. However, when it comes to a case involving a prominent opposition figure like Dr. Besigye, the same flexibility is not applied. This selective approach casts doubt on the impartiality of the Law Council and raises questions about whether political considerations played a role in the denial of Karua’s application.
—
The Regional and International Implications
The refusal to grant Karua a temporary practicing license also raises important questions about Uganda’s commitment to regional integration. The East African Community (EAC) Treaty and its protocols, including the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA), emphasize the free movement of professionals across member states, including legal practitioners. By denying Karua’s application, Uganda is in direct contradiction of these commitments, which could harm the spirit of regional cooperation that the EAC seeks to foster.
Uganda’s actions appear to undermine the EAC’s goal of facilitating the free movement of labor and professional services. This decision is particularly paradoxical given President Museveni’s strong advocacy for regional integration. If Uganda continues to place political barriers in the way of legal professionals from other EAC member states, it risks isolating itself from the very integration processes that Museveni has long championed.
—
The Uganda Law Society’s Advocacy for Reform
In response to the Law Council’s decision, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has rightly condemned the denial of Karua’s application as per incuriam—legally flawed. The ULS has also called for reforms to ensure that such decisions are made impartially, without political interference. Some members of the ULS have even gone so far as to advocate for the abolition of the Law Council altogether, citing its growing susceptibility to political pressure and inefficiency in handling applications for foreign lawyers.
I fully support this call for reform. The Law Council, and indeed all legal institutions, must operate with full independence, free from political influence. The integrity of Uganda’s legal system depends on the ability of lawyers to perform their duties without fear of political repercussions. The Law Council’s decision in Karua’s case demonstrates the need for urgent reform to ensure that legal institutions are better equipped to serve the principles of justice impartially.
—
My Call for Reform and Conclusion
In conclusion, the Uganda Law Council’s decision to deny Martha Karua a temporary practicing license is not just a legal misstep but also a reflection of broader issues within Uganda’s legal system. The refusal to grant the license based on procedural technicalities, political undertones, and double standards casts doubt on the impartiality and fairness of the decision-making process. Furthermore, it contradicts Uganda’s commitments to regional integration and the free movement of professionals within the East African Community
About author:
ENEN AMBROSE
The author is a Rule of Law enthusiast working at M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates in the up country Town of Adjumani.
DISCLAIMER: all information in this blog is for general knowledge and educational purposes and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers are encouraged to seek qualified attorneys in their areas of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and courses of action.
enenlegalworld 