Category: Isaac Semakade

The Radical New Bar Revolution: Expulsions, Boycotts, and the Battle for the Soul of Uganda’s Legal Profession

Let’s not sugarcoat it: Uganda’s legal profession is in chaos. President Isaac Ssemakadde, the firebrand leader of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), has declared war—on the judiciary, on government interference, and, if necessary, on tradition itself. This isn’t your grandfather’s bar association anymore; it’s a Radical New Bar, blazing through a tired, creaking legal system with orders that feel less like bureaucratic memos and more like the opening shots of a revolution.

It began with Executive Order No. 1 of 2024, a political earthquake that saw the Attorney General and Solicitor General expelled from the ULS Council. Yes, you read that right: expelled. Not asked to step aside politely, not nudged toward the door—expelled. President Ssemakadde called their presence a colonial hangover, an outdated relic that kept the Bar shackled to government influence.

“The AG cannot serve two masters!” Ssemakadde thundered, and just like that, the most senior government lawyers were tossed out of the Council, their titles no longer recognized in what Ssemakadde calls “the House of Justice.” It was a raw, messy, unapologetic power move, the kind that made half the room cheer and the other half gasp. Love him or hate him, the man is not here to play.

The Call to Boycott: Executive Order No. 3—A Legal Bloodbath?

And now here we are, riding the shockwaves of Executive Order No. 3 of 2024, where the stakes have climbed even higher. This time, it’s not just government lawyers feeling the heat—it’s the advocates. All of them.

The ULS has called for a boycott of Judge Musa Ssekaana’s court. Advocates are being ordered—yes, ordered—to stay away. The revolution demands solidarity. The revolution demands sacrifice. But here’s the burning question twisting every lawyer’s stomach: what happens when revolution clashes with professional duty?

Imagine this: you’re an advocate with a client who’s been waiting months, maybe years for their day in court. They’ve sold their land, borrowed money, staked their entire future on this case. And now, because of the boycott, you’re supposed to turn to them and say: “Sorry, justice is on hold this month. We’re making a point.”

Your professional ethics scream at you to stand by your client. The Advocates Act tells you that your duty to your client is sacred, almost holy. But the ULS says otherwise. The ULS says that this fight—this boycott—is bigger than you, bigger than your client, bigger than this one case.

And if you defy the ULS? If you walk into Judge Ssekaana’s courtroom and do your job? Then what? Are you a traitor to the cause? A sellout? Will the ULS come for you next?

This is not just a professional dilemma. This is a moral crucible, a test of loyalty, a trial by fire. Will you risk your client’s future, or will you risk your career? Isaac Ssemakadde has thrown down the gauntlet, and every lawyer in Uganda must decide where they stand.

A Law Society Without Teeth? The ULS’s Fight for Power

But here’s the twist that turns this legal thriller on its head: Can the ULS actually enforce any of this?

Let’s step back for a moment. Under the Uganda Law Society Act, the ULS is tasked with upholding professional standards and improving the conduct of lawyers. But there’s a catch: the ULS can’t legally punish anyone. Not really.

Disciplinary power lies with the Law Council, a separate government-anchored body. The ULS can yell, it can shout, it can issue Executive Orders with the fire and fury of a thousand revolutions—but at the end of the day, it cannot fine you. It cannot suspend you. It cannot strip you of your right to practice law.

What it can do is drag your name through the mud, isolate you, and question your loyalty to the cause. And in a profession where reputation is everything, that’s no small threat. The ULS may not have teeth, but it has a loud voice, and right now, it’s shouting for all the world to hear.

So what happens if an advocate defies the boycott and the ULS tries to discipline them? The answer is a legal nightmare. The accused advocate would challenge the ULS’s authority in court, and—oh, the irony!—they’d find themselves stuck in the very judiciary the boycott condemns.

Justice delayed? Oh, yes. Justice delayed for years. That’s Uganda’s court system for you: clogged, slow, and sometimes deliberately obstructive. By the time the courts decide who’s right and who’s wrong, the boycott will be ancient history, and the ULS’s revolution will either be a roaring success or a long-forgotten whisper.

The Bigger Battle: A Fight for Autonomy

When Ssemakadde expelled the Attorney General and Solicitor General, he wasn’t just flexing muscle—he was making a declaration of independence. He wants the ULS to be a fully autonomous Bar, like those in Canada, South Africa, and other legal systems where the profession regulates itself, free from government influence.

Take Canada’s Law Society of Ontario. There, the Bar has real power: it disciplines lawyers, sets standards, and protects the profession’s integrity. No government official sits at their table, holding sway over decisions that affect the legal profession.

In Uganda, the presence of government lawyers on the ULS Council undermines that independence. Critics have long argued that the Attorney General and Solicitor General, as government agents, represent a conflict of interest—how can they serve both the executive and the profession simultaneously?

By kicking them out, Ssemakadde ripped off the bandage and exposed the wound. But the wound is far from healed. Until the ULS is given real disciplinary authority, until it can act without begging the Law Council for enforcement, the revolution will remain just that: a revolution, full of fire but not yet law.

The Chaos and the Choice

The ULS has lit the match. The lawyers of Uganda now face the fire.

Do they comply with Executive Order No. 3 and boycott the court, risking their clients’ cases, their livelihoods, and their professional ethics?
Or do they stand up and say no, risking isolation, humiliation, and the fury of the Radical New Bar?

This isn’t just a battle for the courts. It’s a battle for the soul of Uganda’s legal profession.

Isaac Ssemakadde has made it clear: there’s no room for compromise. You’re either with the revolution or against it. And if you’re against it, you’ll have to answer not just to the ULS but to the future of justice in Uganda.

The system is broken, yes. The courts are failing, yes. But will boycotts and expulsions fix it? Or are they just adding more chaos to the madness?

What happens next is up to Uganda’s advocates. The storm is here, and every lawyer must decide: Will you stand in the rain, or will you bring the thunder?

The revolution has begun. Where do you stand?

My about me on my other blog posts and other useful disclaimers

December 17, 2024
Judiciary on Trial: Delayed Justice, Judicial Overreach, and Uganda’s Fight for Legal Accountability

Uganda’s judiciary stands at a defining moment. With its recent pattern of issuing injunctions against the Uganda Law Society’s (ULS) internal processes, the courts appear to have placed themselves in opposition to democratization, accountability, and reform. The High Court’s recent ruling in Mugisha Hashim Mugisha & Pheona Nabasa Wall v. ULS, which blocked an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to elect ULS nominees for the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), is the latest episode in this disturbing trend.

But this isn’t just about one ruling. It’s about a systemic pattern: one where the judiciary blocks ULS EGMs for years, grants temporary injunctions that morph into indefinite barriers, and delays rulings while the status quo prevails. Cases such as Brian Kirima v. ULS (2024) and Attorney General v. ULS (2024) illustrate this concerning dynamic, where judicial delays and contradictory rulings obstruct the ULS’s statutory mandate to protect the rule of law.

The question we must ask is simple but urgent: Is the judiciary afraid of the Radical Surgery being performed by the Radical New Bar? Is this an attempt to resist reform and entrench unelected power in Uganda’s legal system?

The Radical New Bar’s Vision for Reform

Under President Ssemakade, the Radical New Bar has spearheaded a bold revolution. This movement is more than a change in leadership—it’s a demand for transparency, democracy, and accountability across Uganda’s legal system. The adoption of Executive Order No. 2 of 2024 was a defining moment, directing the ULS to convene elections for JSC nominees. These elections represented a critical step in dismantling decades of unelected power and reforming the judiciary.

For too long, unelected ULS representatives have served on the JSC well past their lawful tenure. These representatives wield significant power over judicial appointments, often without public accountability. Ssemakade’s reforms sought to change this by ensuring that ULS members could elect their representatives democratically—a step toward restoring public trust in the judiciary.

But the judiciary’s recent rulings raise a troubling question: Are the courts complicit in protecting the unelected elite and resisting much-needed reform?

Judicial Overreach: A Pattern of Obstruction

The recent ruling in Mugisha & Wall is part of a broader pattern of judicial interference. Courts have repeatedly issued injunctions that block the ULS from convening EGMs, leaving important governance issues unresolved. In Brian Kirima v. ULS (2024), for example, the High Court issued a temporary injunction blocking the ULS from holding an EGM requested by its members. The court justified this decision by claiming that the meeting might lead to resolutions outside the ULS’s statutory mandate.

Similarly, in Attorney General v. ULS (2024), the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the ULS from convening an EGM to discuss judicial misconduct allegations. The court argued that such discussions would infringe on the independence of the judiciary and encroach on the Judicial Service Commission’s (JSC) mandate. While protecting judicial independence is crucial, these rulings have had the effect of stifling the ULS’s role as a watchdog for the rule of law.

The judiciary’s actions create a chilling effect, sending a message that the ULS cannot hold its own members or representatives accountable without judicial interference. This is particularly troubling when unelected JSC representatives continue to serve beyond their lawful tenure, shielded by the very courts that should ensure accountability.

Preliminary Issues Ignored: A Missed Opportunity

The Mugisha & Wall case could have been resolved on preliminary issues, sparing the judiciary from issuing an injunction that has paralyzed ULS processes.

1. The Question of Locus Standi

The first applicant, Mugisha Hashim Mugisha, lacked the locus standi required to bring the case. Judicial review, as outlined in Rule 3 of the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules, 2019, is reserved for those who can demonstrate that they are directly affected by an administrative decision. Mugisha was neither a candidate for the JSC election nor a suspended council member. His application, therefore, lacked the specific and tangible interest necessary for judicial review.

This procedural flaw should have been addressed as a preliminary issue, as it rendered the entire case speculative and unwarranted. Resolving this question at the outset would have saved valuable judicial resources and avoided the need for an injunction that undermines democratic processes.

2. Wall’s Ineligibility for the JSC

The second applicant, Pheona Nabasa Wall, was constitutionally disqualified from being nominated to the JSC. Article 146(2)(b) of the Constitution requires nominees to have 15 years of standing as an advocate of the High Court. Wall’s candidacy was contested by the ULS Elections Committee, which submitted an affidavit from Brownie Ebal stating that Wall had only 14.6 years of standing as of December 3, 2024.

This affidavit, a critical piece of evidence, was never challenged or controverted by Wall. Under Ugandan case law, uncontroverted evidence is deemed admitted. In Samwiri Massa v. Rose Achieng (1978), the Court of Appeal held that failure to rebut sworn evidence amounts to acceptance of its truth. By failing to address this disqualification as a preliminary matter, the court allowed a constitutionally flawed case to proceed.

Had the court addressed either of these issues, the Mugisha & Wall case could have been resolved early, preserving the judiciary’s resources and ensuring compliance with constitutional and procedural law.

Delayed Justice: A Crisis of Accountability

Another critical issue raised by this ruling is the delayed justice that has plagued Uganda’s legal system for years. The Mugisha & Wall case is not unique—temporary injunctions like those in Brian Kirima v. ULS have effectively frozen the ULS’s ability to act for years. The main cases often remain unresolved, leaving the temporary orders in place indefinitely.

For instance:

In Brian Kirima v. ULS (2024), the court blocked an EGM requisitioned by ULS members, claiming it might lead to illegal resolutions. However, the main case remains unresolved, and the temporary injunction continues to prevent the ULS from fulfilling its statutory mandate.

In Attorney General v. ULS (2024), the court ruled against an EGM to discuss judicial misconduct, citing concerns over judicial independence. This ruling has effectively shielded unelected representatives and delayed meaningful conversations about reform within the ULS.

Such delays raise serious concerns about the judiciary’s commitment to justice. Is the judiciary using procedural delays to block reform and protect entrenched interests?

The Unelected JSC Representatives: A Block on Reform

The judiciary’s rulings have effectively protected unelected ULS representatives on the JSC, who continue to serve beyond their tenure. These representatives hold immense power over judicial appointments, shaping the judiciary in ways that lack public accountability. Ssemakade’s Radical New Bar sought to challenge this system by introducing elections for JSC nominees, but the judiciary’s actions have delayed this critical reform.

Without elections, the same unelected representatives will continue to serve well past February 2025, when their lawful tenure expires. This delay not only undermines democracy but also perpetuates a system where judicial appointments remain opaque and unaccountable.

Benedicto Kiwanuka’s Warning: A Judiciary at Risk

The story of Benedicto Kiwanuka serves as a grim reminder of what happens when the judiciary fails to uphold the rule of law. Kiwanuka’s abduction and disappearance under Idi Amin’s regime marked the judiciary’s collapse into irrelevance. His fate was not just a personal tragedy but a warning about the dangers of judicial complacency.

Today, the judiciary risks repeating this history. By obstructing reform and delaying justice, the courts are eroding public trust and undermining their own legitimacy. The Radical New Bar recognizes this danger and is committed to ensuring that the judiciary remains a pillar of democracy, not a shield for entrenched interests.

A Call to Action: Defend the Rule of Law

To the judiciary, we issue this warning: The Radical Surgery cannot be stopped. Reform is coming, and the judiciary must choose whether to lead the way or be swept aside. The courts must stop obstructing ULS EGMs, resolve cases without delay, and uphold their own precedents.

To the ULS, we say this: Continue the fight. Defend your autonomy. Resist judicial interference. The Radical New Bar stands with you.

Conclusion: A Revolution Awaits

The judiciary is at a crossroads. It can choose to embrace reform, uphold accountability, and restore public trust, or it can continue to obstruct progress and protect the status quo. The Radical New Bar will not falter. We will fight for transparency, democracy, and justice at every turn.

This is not just a reflection—it is a revolution.

Disclaimer:
These reflections are informed by Uganda’s legal and historical context. They do not seek to interfere with pending judicial matters but aim to provoke meaningful dialogue about the rule of law in Uganda.

December 16, 2024
Reflections on Protecting the Radical New Bar Revolution: A Call for Integrity and Reform in the ULS Elections

As the Uganda Law Society (ULS) prepares for the election of its representatives to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), we find ourselves at a critical juncture. President Isaac K. Ssemakade’s leadership under the Radical New Bar (RNB) has reignited the ULS’s commitment to justice, accountability, and transparency. Through RNB Executive Order No. 2 of 2024, he courageously recalled unelected representatives to the JSC, a move that was both revolutionary and necessary.

This bold action was only the beginning. The forthcoming elections must uphold these revolutionary ideals by ensuring compliance with the law and protecting the credibility of the ULS.

Salute comrade Kafuko Nicholas.
I take this moment to personally credit Kafuko Nicholas, whose letter to the ULS Electoral Commission was the first to sound the alarm on the eligibility of certain candidates for the JSC positions. His insights into the inconsistencies and potential breaches of the law were not only timely but crucial in sparking this debate. Kafuko’s determination and dedication to upholding the rule of law remind us that true change begins with individuals willing to challenge the status quo.

The Fundamental Issue: Greed and Conflict of Interest

One cannot help but reflect on the underlying motivation of individuals who seek to hold onto one public office while simultaneously vying for representation in another. This is not merely a question of eligibility; it is a manifestation of greed of the highest order.

The role of a ULS representative to the JSC demands complete independence, impartiality, and a commitment to the society’s interests above all else. Clinging to a public office while seeking this role undermines these principles. It reflects an unwillingness to relinquish power and privileges, raising serious questions about the candidate’s intentions and priorities.

Public Officers and Electoral Integrity

The Constitution of Uganda provides a clear definition of public officers under Article 175(a) and (b): those holding positions in public service and drawing their salaries from the Consolidated Fund. This definition unequivocally includes individuals employed in public universities, statutory bodies, and other government-funded entities.

Uganda’s electoral laws for mainstream offices, including Members of Parliament, the Presidency, and Local Government, require public officers to resign before contesting. This ensures that such candidates do not misuse state resources or exploit their official positions to gain an unfair advantage.

In the Mukasa v. Uganda Revenue Authority (Civil Appeal No. 78 of 2009) case, the Court of Appeal reinforced the understanding that public officers are individuals whose remuneration originates from government funds. This precedent further solidifies the argument that those holding public offices must resign before contesting for positions such as ULS representatives to the JSC.

The Role of the Radical New Bar.

President Ssemakade has laid the foundation for a new era of accountability and transparency within the ULS. However, the true test of the Radical New Bar Revolution lies in its ability to confront systemic flaws and safeguard the integrity of its processes.

The nomination of public officers for the JSC election represents a clear conflict of interest and a betrayal of the principles the ULS stands for. Allowing such individuals to contest would not only violate the law but also tarnish the credibility of the Radical New Bar.

My Reflections: Greed vs. Service

At its core, the ULS represents a commitment to justice, fairness, and public service. The pursuit of multiple offices for personal gain betrays these values. It signals a prioritization of self-interest over the collective good of the legal fraternity and the judiciary.

To those clinging to their public offices while seeking election to the JSC, I say this: the Radical New Bar is not a vehicle for your ambitions. It is a movement for accountability and reform, and it will not accommodate greed or unethical practices.

A Call to Action: Reform and Accountability

The ULS must seize this opportunity to address the systemic gaps that have allowed this situation to arise. I call upon the following stakeholders to act decisively:

1. Uganda Law Society
Amend the ULS Elections Regulations to explicitly require the resignation of public officers before nomination. This will align ULS processes with national electoral standards and prevent future ambiguities.

2. Parliament of Uganda
Introduce comprehensive reforms to harmonize electoral laws across all institutions, ensuring that the principles applied to mainstream elections are equally enforced in quasi-governmental and professional bodies.

3. Judicial Service Commission
Uphold strict eligibility criteria and work closely with the ULS to ensure that representatives are selected through a lawful and transparent process.

4. Civil Society and Legal Advocacy Groups
Amplify public awareness of these issues and hold all stakeholders accountable for maintaining the integrity of the JSC election.

5. Legal Fraternity
Embrace the spirit of reform and actively oppose any attempts to subvert the principles of fairness and transparency.

Protecting the Revolution

The Radical New Bar has sparked a revolution, but revolutions are fragile. They require constant vigilance, courageous leadership, and an unwavering commitment to the values they seek to uphold.

President Ssemakade has demonstrated his willingness to confront the status quo, but his legacy—and the legacy of the Radical New Bar—depends on what we do next. By enforcing the law, addressing systemic flaws, and rejecting greed and self-interest, we can ensure that the ULS remains a beacon of justice and integrity.

Conclusion

The forthcoming election of ULS representatives to the Judicial Service Commission is not just a procedural matter; it is a defining moment for the Radical New Bar Revolution. We must honor the contributions of individuals like Kafuko Nicholas, whose vigilance has highlighted critical flaws in the process.

Let this be a turning point. Let us demand accountability, embrace reform, and reject greed in all its forms. Together, we can protect the Radical New Bar Revolution and ensure that the Uganda Law Society lives up to its mission as a guardian of justice and fairness.

The time to act is now. Let us build a legacy of integrity and accountability that will inspire future generations of legal professionals.

About the Author.

ENEN AMBROSE

The author is a Rule of Law enthusiast, a fan of President Isaac K Ssemakade and the Radical New Bar Revolution. He practices with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates in the up country Town of Adjumani.

DISCLAIMER:

This write up contains merely personal reflections for information purposes and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers are strongly encouraged to seek the services of a professional attorney in their area of Jurisdiction for situation specific advice and appropriate courses of action.

Contact us:

Mobile: 0789856805

Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

December 11, 2024
Safeguarding the Revolution: My Perspective on President Isaac K. Ssemakadde and the Radical New Bar

Credit. Isaac Ssemakade, profile photo on X (formerly Twitter)

As an observer of the Uganda Law Society (ULS) and a proponent of transparency, fairness, and integrity within the legal profession, I find myself deeply aligned with the vision of President Isaac K. Ssemakadde. His leadership has been a crucial turning point for the ULS, not only through structural reforms but also by ensuring that individuals representing the Society, particularly in influential bodies like the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), meet the highest standards of moral character and constitutional integrity.

Through his missives and public critiques, Ssemakadde is safeguarding a revolution—one that seeks to restore democratic principles, uphold the rule of law, and demand that those in leadership roles within the ULS and beyond exemplify high moral standing. I believe that in his recent actions, particularly his response to the election candidates for the JSC, Ssemakadde is doing much more than critiquing individuals—he is defending the integrity of the Radical New Bar.

The Radical New Bar: A Vision for a Just and Transparent Legal Profession

Ssemakadde’s vision, the Radical New Bar, reflects an urgent need for reform within the ULS, especially in its representation and governance structures. When he took office, it was clear that internal democracy had long been sidelined, leaving members with limited influence over key decisions. The Radical New Bar seeks to reverse this trend by ensuring that the ULS becomes an organization that truly listens to its members and works in the best interest of justice, transparency, and accountability.

For me, the essence of the Radical New Bar is this: we cannot expect a society that represents justice if its leaders and representatives do not embody the principles of fairness, integrity, and moral strength. Ssemakadde’s actions demonstrate that the ULS should not merely be an institution concerned with professional development but a leader in ensuring democratic representation and ethical conduct.

My Take on Regulation 17(5): A Necessary Safeguard for Electoral Integrity

One of the more contentious aspects of the ULS Election Regulations is Regulation 17(5), which restricts media campaigns during elections to closed ULS groups. Critics argue that this regulation stifles freedom of expression by limiting candidates’ ability to campaign publicly. However, in my view, Regulation 17(5) plays an essential role in preserving the integrity of the election process.

I believe that the primary function of the ULS election is to determine the best candidates based on their professional qualifications and commitment to the rule of law—not based on their ability to manipulate public opinion through media campaigns. Ssemakadde’s recent presser, condemning unauthorized media promotions that aimed to influence the election results, aligns with the intent of Regulation 17(5). In his actions, he is not only safeguarding the election’s fairness but also upholding the professionalism that should define the ULS elections. By ensuring that candidates are evaluated on their merits rather than their media presence, Ssemakadde is, in my view, defending the Radical New Bar against the dangers of external influence.

In this light, Regulation 17(5) ensures that the focus of the election remains within the ULS community, allowing for a more substantive and focused campaign. For me, it’s a safeguard that ensures fair representation—a vital piece of the Radical New Bar’s broader vision.

The Yasin Sentumbwe and Simon Semuwemba Case: Safeguarding Fairness and Justice

Another example of Ssemakadde safeguarding the revolution lies in his defense of Yasin Sentumbwe and Simon Semuwemba, two students expelled from Uganda Christian University (UCU) in 2016 for leading protests against a tuition fee hike. The students were expelled without a fair hearing, and the Mukono High Court subsequently ruled that the university had violated their rights to natural justice. The Court reinstated the students and awarded them Shs 20 million in damages.

In this context, when Ssemakadde publicly critiqued Dr. Kakooza for his role in the unlawful expulsion of the students, he was doing more than protecting individual rights. He was protecting the integrity of the ULS by calling out those whose actions fail to meet the constitutional muster for leadership. For me, this was a critical moment in safeguarding the revolution, ensuring that those who represent the ULS in positions of power, such as the JSC, must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to justice and fairness.

Pheona Wall: The Stifling of Internal Democracy

Ssemakadde’s critique of former ULS President Pheona Wall also serves as an example of him safeguarding the revolution. During Wall’s presidency, Ruth Sebatindira and Nora Matovu Winyi were nominated to the Judicial Service Commission, but their nominations were met with internal resistance from within the ULS Council. Specifically, Amolo Shamim, the Northern Uganda Representative during Francis Gimara’s presidency, publicly protested the nominations and expressed concerns about the lack of consultation anFor Ssemakadde, Wall’s actions represented a failure to respect internal democracy. Her nomination bid was nothing less than hypocrisy and double standards.

Ssemakadde’s critique is, for me, an important reminder that leadership in the ULS should be inclusive, transparent, and responsive to the needs and views of its members. By calling out Wall’s failure to engage with internal opposition, Ssemakadde ensured that the Radical New Bar did not slip back into the undemocratic practices of the past.

Ssemakadde’s Legacy: A Leader for Integrity

Through his missives, public critiques, and his commitment to ensuring that only those with high moral standing and proven integrity are allowed to represent the ULS in influential roles, President Ssemakadde is safeguarding the revolution. His work is not only about structural reforms; it is about ensuring that the Radical New Bar remains true to its core principles of justice, accountability, and moral integrity.

As we look toward the 17th December, 2024 ULS elections for our representatives to the Judicial Service Commission, I believe that the path Ssemakadde has laid will lead to a stronger, more transparent ULS—one that is rooted in democratic values and constitutional integrity. The Radical New Bar is not just a vision for reform; it is a movement for change that calls on all ULS members to take ownership of the future of Uganda’s legal profession.

In his missives, Ssemakadde is not simply criticizing individuals; he is protecting the gains of the Radical New Bar Revolution and the integrity of the ULS, ensuring that it remains a beacon of justice, and a force for fairness in Uganda’s legal landscape. Through these efforts, Ssemakadde is laying the groundwork for a legal community that can lead the way in accountability, integrity, and the rule of law. This is the future of the ULS—a future shaped by the Radical New Bar, one that will thrive in an environment of justice and democratic engagement.

About the author.

The author is a rule of Law enthusiast and a huge fan of President Isaac Ssemakade, the current President of the Uganda Law Society.

Contact us:

+256789856805

ambrosenen@gmail.com

December 9, 2024
A Moment of Reckoning: The Constitutional Crisis and Rise of Dictatorship at the Uganda Law Society

The sudden expulsion of Isaac Ssemakadde as President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS) has triggered intense reflection within Uganda’s legal fraternity. This controversial move raises profound questions about the legality of his removal, the ethical implications of his leadership style, and the broader institutional challenges facing the ULS. At its core, the situation reveals tensions between professionalism, governance, and the external pressures that shape such decisions.

This moment is a reckoning for the ULS, a professional body tasked with safeguarding the rule of law and justice. How the society navigates this crisis will define its integrity, independence, and democratic principles moving forward.

—

I. The Controversial Leadership of Isaac Ssemakadde

Isaac Ssemakadde’s tenure at the ULS was marked by bold decisions aimed at reforming the society and addressing systemic flaws in Uganda’s justice system. Key actions included:

1. Expelling the Attorney General: Ssemakadde removed Kiryowa Kiwanuka from the ULS Council, citing conflicts of interest. This unprecedented move disrupted long-standing traditions and relationships within the society.

2. Recalling Representatives to Statutory Bodies: He withdrew ULS representatives from critical bodies, including the Judicial Service Commission, in an attempt to enhance institutional independence.
3. Suspending the CEO: The suspension of Mable, the ULS CEO, highlighted internal divisions and polarized opinions, with some viewing it as necessary reform and others as overreach.

While Ssemakadde’s leadership won praise for its courage in challenging entrenched power dynamics, it also made him a target for criticism and possible retaliation from powerful actors within and outside the legal profession.

—

II. Legal Questions Surrounding the Expulsion

An Elected Leader Ousted by a Council

Ssemakadde’s expulsion by the ULS Council has raised significant legal concerns. The Uganda Law Society Act grants the General Assembly the exclusive authority to remove an elected president. The process requires:

Clear evidence of misconduct or violations of the society’s rules.

Adherence to procedural safeguards, including a transparent and fair hearing.

Validation of the decision through a vote at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM).

The Council’s unilateral decision to expel Ssemakadde appears to bypass these procedural requirements, making the legality of the move questionable. If these steps were disregarded, the expulsion undermines the democratic framework upon which the ULS is built.

III. Backlash to Ssemakadde’s Leadership and Style

A Provocative Communicator

Ssemakadde’s outspoken rhetoric, particularly his comments targeting public figures like Attorney General Kiwanuka and DPP Jane Frances Abodo, drew sharp criticism. While his critiques focused on systemic flaws—pretrial detention, judicial delays, and military trials of civilians—his use of provocative language became a point of contention, overshadowing the substance of his arguments.

Critics accused Ssemakadde of damaging the dignity of his office, while his supporters argued that his tone was a reflection of the urgency of the issues he sought to address. This clash highlights the perennial debate between decorum and the need for robust critique in professional settings.

IV. External Pressures and the Role of Politics

Political Interference or Internal Coup?

Many believe that Ssemakadde’s expulsion was influenced by external forces threatened by his reformist agenda. His removal of Kiwanuka and his vocal criticism of systemic injustices disrupted established power structures and may have provoked retaliation from influential political actors.

If external actors influenced the Council’s decision, this represents a troubling erosion of the ULS’s independence. Such interference would compromise the society’s ability to fulfill its role as a defender of the rule of law.

Risk to Institutional Integrity

The expulsion of an elected leader under such circumstances sets a dangerous precedent, potentially transforming the ULS from an independent professional body into a tool for political agendas.

—

V. A Leadership Void and the Imposition of a Dictatorship

The expulsion of Ssemakadde has created a leadership vacuum, which the ULS Council has sought to address by appointing a caretaker committee headed by Secretary General Philip Munaabi. This decision has raised additional concerns:

1. Unelected Leadership: By assuming presidential powers without a vote, Munaabi effectively becomes an unelected president. This undermines the democratic principles of the ULS.

2. No Electoral Roadmap: The Council has provided no timeline or procedure for electing a new president, leaving Munaabi in a powerful position indefinitely. This risks turning an interim measure into a de facto dictatorship for the remainder of Ssemakadde’s term.

3. Concentration of Power: Combining the roles of Secretary General and acting president consolidates executive and administrative authority in one individual, reducing oversight and accountability.

These developments highlight the urgent need for transparency and adherence to democratic processes within the ULS.

VI. A Call to Action for the ULS Membership

The current crisis presents an opportunity for ULS members to reclaim their society’s integrity and independence. Key steps include:

1. Demanding Transparency: Members must call for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to review the legality of Ssemakadde’s expulsion and chart a clear roadmap for electing new leadership.

2. Safeguarding Democracy: The society must restore its democratic processes to prevent unelected officials from wielding unchecked power.

3. Focusing on Systemic Issues: The legal fraternity must address the substantive critiques raised by Ssemakadde, including delays in justice, pretrial detention, and military trials of civilians.

4. Resisting Political Interference: The ULS must reaffirm its independence and ensure that decisions are made transparently and without external influence.

—

VII. Conclusion: A Defining Moment for the ULS

The expulsion of Isaac Ssemakadde is a watershed moment for the Uganda Law Society. It has exposed tensions between leadership, legality, and politics, while raising critical questions about the society’s commitment to democracy and justice. While Ssemakadde’s provocative style remains polarizing, the issues he championed—access to justice, constitutionalism, and the rule of law—are too important to ignore.

For the ULS, this is a moment of reckoning. The society must act decisively to restore transparency, accountability, and democratic integrity. Silence is not an option; the legal fraternity must speak up and ensure that this crisis becomes a turning point for the rule of law in Uganda.

About the author.

The author is an Advocate of the Ugandan Courts of Judicature, currently at, M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani. He is a Rule of Law pundit who firmly believes that without the Rule of Law, Lawyers will become unemployed and society will regress backwards towards anarchy.

Contact us:

Mobile: +256789856805

Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

DISCLAIMER; This blog is for public awareness and general information purposes. The contents here in are not intended to serve as legal guidance. The author accepts no liability for injuries, legal or otherwise arising or connected with use of legal information in this blog.

Readers are encouraged to consult qualified attorneys in their areas of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and courses of action.

November 23, 2024
In the Kingdom of Truth, Context is King: Reflecting on Isaac Ssemakade’s Controversial Speech

Isaac Ssemakade, President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), recently delivered a speech that has sparked intense debate. While his use of vulgarities to critique figures like the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Hon. Jane Frances Abodo, and the Attorney General, Hon. Kiryowa Kiwanuka, has drawn public condemnation, this controversy risks overshadowing the broader issues he sought to address. His message about systemic injustices in Uganda’s legal system—issues like pretrial detention, delayed prosecutions, and military trials of civilians—deserves attention. In unpacking this moment, it is crucial to recall that in the “kingdom of truth, context is king.”

Focusing on the Message, Not Just the Words

Ssemakade’s critique targeted deeply entrenched challenges within Uganda’s justice system:

1. Pretrial Detention: Thousands of detainees languish in prison for years without trial, violating constitutional guarantees of a speedy trial.

2. Judicial Delays: Case backlogs deny justice to victims and accused persons alike, eroding public trust in the system.

3. Military Jurisdiction over Civilians: The controversial trial of civilians in military courts, like the case of Olivia Lutaaya, highlights concerns about due process and judicial overreach.

These systemic flaws, while acknowledged in policy circles, rarely command the public attention they deserve. By focusing on Ssemakade’s language alone, public discourse risks obscuring these urgent issues.

The Role of Context in Understanding Criticism

The phrase “in the kingdom of truth, context is king” underscores the importance of evaluating any message holistically. Ssemakade’s speech must be understood as a critique of institutional failures rather than reduced to its most inflammatory soundbites. Selective outrage over language often serves as a distraction from the uncomfortable truths a message may carry.

Figures like Malcolm X have historically defended the use of provocative rhetoric to challenge systemic injustice, arguing that “wrong is wrong” regardless of how it is presented. Similarly, George Orwell warned against letting a focus on tone overshadow the substance of critique. Context invites us to balance the discomfort of delivery with the urgency of the underlying message.

A Call to Public Officials: Embrace the Message

The backlash against Ssemakade’s speech, led by groups like FIDA-Uganda and the Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors (UAPP), has centered on the perceived disrespect in his language. While such critiques are valid, they should not detract from the pressing need for institutional reform. Public officials, particularly those named in the speech, must demonstrate leadership by engaging with the issues raised rather than dismissing them due to the tone of delivery.

This moment presents an opportunity for public officials to:

Acknowledge the Truths: Address the systemic challenges of delayed justice, pretrial detention, and questionable jurisdiction practices.

Foster Dialogue: Open avenues for constructive critique, recognizing that even uncomfortable speech can highlight areas for improvement.

Model Resilience: Show the public that institutions can embrace feedback, however harsh, in the interest of justice.

Conclusion: Context Is King

Isaac Ssemakade’s controversial remarks have sparked a necessary conversation about justice in Uganda. While the offensive language used in his speech warrants an apology, this moment must not be reduced to outrage over tone. The systemic failures he highlighted affect thousands of lives and demand immediate attention.

Public officials and civil society must shift the focus from style to substance, drawing lessons from global thinkers like Malcolm X and Orwell, who remind us that truth often arrives wrapped in discomfort. In the kingdom of truth, context reigns supreme—and justice cannot afford to lose sight of it.

About the author.

The author is an Advocate of the Ugandan Courts of Judicature, currently at M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani. He is passionate about the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism, Human Rights, Democracy and access to Justice. He hopes that through write ups like this, civic engagement can find its rightful place in shaping public discourse and influence policy change for the better good.

DISCLAIMER: Any references to legal underpinings are purely for informational and public discourse purposes and not intended to serve as legal advice. Readers of this content are strongly advised to seek the Counsel of qualified attorneys for situation specific legal advice and legal services.

Contact us:

Mobile: +256789856805

Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

November 21, 2024
Revisiting Free Speech, Professional Ethics, and Gender Sensitivity in Uganda: A Legal and Social Analysis

Isaac Semakade’s recent remarks about senior public officials have ignited intense debate on free speech, vulgarity, and the ethical responsibilities of professionals. While organizations like the Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors (UAPP) and FIDA-Uganda have condemned his language and demanded an apology, others argue that his statements are a reflection of justified frustration with Uganda’s systemic issues. This discourse raises critical legal, ethical, and societal questions.

Legal Frameworks Governing Free Speech in Uganda

Article 29(1)(a) of the Ugandan Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but it is not absolute. Various laws impose limitations:

1. Penal Code Act: Criminalizes obscene publications and speech deemed offensive to public morality.

2. Computer Misuse Act: Penalizes offensive communication and misuse of electronic systems, often criticized for vague definitions that risk curtailing legitimate dissent.

3. Defamation Laws: Protect individuals from false and injurious statements, balancing free speech with reputational rights.

However, Uganda’s judicial precedents, such as Onyango-Obbo & Mwenda v. Attorney General, emphasize that free speech encompasses the right to critique government actions, even in ways that may offend or provoke. Justice Mulenga’s landmark judgment underscored that the limits of free speech must be narrowly construed to allow robust public debate.

International Legal Perspectives on Profanity and Free Expression

Globally, courts have grappled with the tension between vulgarity and free speech, offering comparative insights relevant to Uganda:

1. United States – Cohen v. California (1971): The Supreme Court ruled that offensive language, such as “F*** the Draft,” is protected under the First Amendment unless it incites violence or meets the strict test for obscenity. This case underscores the principle that free expression protects both ideas and the emotive force behind them.

2. European Court of Human Rights – Handyside v. UK (1976): Freedom of expression includes ideas that offend or shock, but states may impose restrictions to protect public morality.

3. India – Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): The Indian Supreme Court struck down laws criminalizing “offensive” speech, emphasizing the need for clarity and proportionality in restricting free expression.

These cases highlight the necessity of carefully balancing societal interests, public morality, and individual rights in regulating speech.

Gender Sensitivity and Public Discourse

FIDA-Uganda and similar organizations have framed Semakade’s remarks as emblematic of broader societal disrespect toward women in leadership. Referring to a public official as “another vagina from Karamoja” not only perpetuates harmful gender stereotypes but also trivializes substantive critiques of governance. This resonates with global debates on gender-sensitive communication, where freedom of speech must not justify the marginalization of women.

Internationally, courts like the ECHR in E.S. v. Austria (2018) have drawn lines between criticism and language that incites discrimination. While Uganda does not have explicit gender-based restrictions on speech, these examples offer a framework for addressing the intersection of free speech and gender equity.

Ethical Boundaries and Professional Responsibility

Professional ethics demand that legal leaders uphold decorum, particularly in public discourse. The Uganda Association of Public Prosecutors has argued that Semakade’s language undermines the dignity of the legal profession. Similarly, FIDA-Uganda views his remarks as detracting from the serious issues he sought to address, such as delayed prosecutions and institutional inefficiency.

Critics of Semakade’s approach point out that effective advocacy does not require vulgarity. Instead, it risks alienating allies and diminishing the credibility of the underlying message. However, proponents argue that provocative language can be a powerful tool to draw attention to systemic injustices, as seen in historical civil rights movements worldwide.

Structural Challenges in Uganda’s Justice System

Semakade’s remarks, though controversial, highlight systemic failures that fuel public frustration:

1. Pretrial Detention: Nearly half of Uganda’s prison population comprises detainees awaiting trial, a clear violation of their right to a speedy trial.

2. Civilian Trials in Military Courts: Cases like that of Olivia Lutaaya illustrate concerns about due process and the overreach of military jurisdictions.

3. Delayed Prosecutions: These perpetuate injustices and erode public trust in the judiciary.

Addressing these structural issues would diminish the need for incendiary rhetoric by fostering accountability through systemic reform.

Reconciling Free Speech and Professionalism

The condemnation of Semakade’s remarks reflects a broader societal debate: how should professionals navigate the balance between free speech and ethical obligations? Comparative legal analysis suggests that while free speech must be robustly protected, it is equally essential to ensure that advocacy respects principles of equality, dignity, and professionalism.

Uganda’s legal community faces an opportunity to lead this conversation by promoting respectful and effective communication while addressing the root causes of public dissatisfaction. Ensuring that justice is both accessible and equitable will go a long way toward creating an environment where free expression thrives without resorting to divisive language.

About the author.

Enen Ambrose is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature in Uganda. He practices with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates. He is passionate about access to Justice, the Rule of Law, Democracy, Human Rights and Constitutionalism. Drawing inspiration from Gerry Spence’s How to argue and win all the time, he believes that stifling free speech is a barrier to meaningful civic engagement and holding the state accountable for the broader Rule of Law and Constitutional abrogations or contraventions. He is a huge fan of President Isaac Semakade, the current President of the Uganda Law Society who rode on the Back on track theme and the Bang the table slogan. He also strongly believes in the 4Ds, Democratization, Demilitarization, Decolonization and Digitization which were the major deliverables that President Isaac Semakade promised during his campaign to become the head of the Ugandan Bar.

Contact us:

Mobile: +256789856905

Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for educational, recreational and informative purposes only. It is not intended to provide legal advice. The author shall not be liable for any injuries, legal or otherwise that arises from reliance on the contents of this blog post as legal advice. Viewers are strongly encouraged to contact a qualified attorney in their area of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and possible Legal redress.

November 20, 2024