enenlegalworld

Category: Legal Alert

  • The Philosophy of Insults: When Truth Becomes Fire and Tests Legitimacy”Enen’s Letter to the Radical New Bar and Every Citizen Who Still Dares to Speak

    The Philosophy of Insults: When Truth Becomes Fire and Tests Legitimacy”Enen’s Letter to the Radical New Bar and Every Citizen Who Still Dares to Speak

    Logo: Enen Legal World


    🪶 The Fable

    Deep within the Mambo Forest, the animal kingdom lived in awe of a single, dazzling truth: their ruler, Twon Gweno the cock, wore a crown of living fire. His comb was a legend, a crest of such vibrant crimson that the elders swore it was a fragment of the first sun. His morning crow was a decree:

    “Bow to my glory, and you will be spared my flame.”

    And so, the animals bowed. Fear made them pious; fear made the cock sovereign with unquestioned loyalty, respect and cooperation from the rest of the animal kingdom in that forest. It was a classic case of natural-born legitimacy; never really earned.

    One evening, a crisis struck. Ichuli, the fox, the sole specialist in lighting the communal fire, was away. The wood was piled, but the spark was missing. The night, cold and predatory, loomed.

    Odyek Odyek, the hyena, a friend to truth and enemy of pretence, stepped forward.

    “The solution is simple,” she said. “We bow to Ladit Twon Gweno’s crown of fire. I will sprint to his home and borrow a spark.”

    She took a tuft of the driest spear grass, the Obia and went to the cock’s compound. She found him in a deep, unconscious slumber. Without waking him, she gently pressed the grass to his legendary crown, waiting for the catch, the sizzle, the proof.

    The grass rested on the crown, as inert as if it had been placed on a cool stone. The legendary fire was a phantom.


    Odyek Odyek, the hyena returned to the gathering and dropped the cold, unburnt grass in the centre of the circle. No words were needed. The lie they had bowed to for generations unravelled in that silent moment.

    Power, and unearned but coerced legitimacy unmasked, bled its authority into the silent night.


    ⚖️ The Lesson

    Borrowed fire must warm the hearts of the people. When it no longer does, the borrower is called to account.


    So it is with the courts. The robe, the gavel, the summons, and the warrant are instruments loaned by the people. Article 126(1) of the Constitution does not sing an ornament; it issues a command:

    Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the Courts in their name and in accordance with the law and their values, norms, and aspirations.


    🧱 The Three Pillars of Legitimacy

    Legitimacy; the respect of the people and their cooperation with the courts, is the covenant at the heart of that loan. It demands three sacramental elements:

    Reflection: Judicial power must reflect the values and aspirations of the people; not the insatiable appetite of a sophisticated elite for luxury or high life.

    Truth: Courts must administer justice in accordance with law and truth, not convenience or midnight deals.

    The Judicial Oath: The solemn undertaking before God to do justice to all manner of people without fear, favour, ill will or affection is no actor’s prayer; it is a chain of duty.


    Strip away any of these, and what remains is a gowned pretender, eloquent and majestic, perhaps, but hollow: a cock whose crown no longer burns.


    The Evidence of Decay

    For those who have seen:

    • Appeal files missing thirty-eight pages.

    • A High Court hearing conducted not in a public courtroom but secretly in a posh hotel in which 15 minutes out of those proceedings were conducted in the absence of the opposite party and the whole process bashed by the Court of Appeal for want of a fair hearing and lack of judicial accountability and transparency and thereby further exacerbating the already slim public trust in the Court system entirely

    • A lower bench judicial officer bashed; “I don’t want to see this rubbish here, take it back where it came from” when they had sought guidance over files of thousands of remand detainees who had clocked mandatory bail, over 5 years where the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution state attorneys appeared neither willing nor ready to commit them for trial in the High Court.

    • The poorest peasants completely blocked from accessing justice because the lower courts have received directives not to register and dispose of customary land disputes unless a surveyor had first rendered a preliminary survey report; peasants who have never heard of, met heard about or hired the services of a professional called a surveyor. They have to sell a chunk of land  to afford a surveyor to conduct a preliminary survey and get their case registered.

    • A National Bar Association President’s liberty preserving Application for stay of execution of a manifestly void Contempt of Court ruling take close to 9 months without disposal.  




    These are not footnotes; they are flesh-and-blood indictments.
    The 1995 Constitution’s promise of a speedy and fair hearing has become hot air—Kikwangala, Kichupuli, Kawani.



    🗣️ The Test — The Philosophy of Insults. Withdrawing legitimacy and requiring that it be earned back by fidelity to its 3 pillars.

    “To insult without malice but with evidence is to perform constitutional maintenance and maintain pure legitimacy.”



    Hence the philosophy of insults. This is not the petty malice of a tavern quarrel. It is a civic stress-test, a pressure gauge for legitimacy.

    It is the public’s cry:

    “GIVE US WHAT YOU OWE US.”


    We lent you power; we demand accountability in return.

    A people that cannot insult and mock power has already lost moral authority. The right to insult and offend the powerful is not a luxury, it is the citizen’s tool for testing whether the borrowed flame is real.


    📜 The Proof — The Jurisprudence of Defiance

    “Leaders should grow hard skins to bear.”
    “Power must endure insult to remain clean.”

    Uganda: When the Constitution Answered Back

    This philosophy is not just wisdom; it is the settled weight of law. Consider Andrew Mwenda, whose words rattled the Republic:


    This philosophy is not just wisdom; it is the settled weight of law. Consider Andrew Mwenda, whose words rattled the Republic:
    “You see these African Presidents. This man went to University, why can’t he
    behave like an educated person? Why does he behave like a villager?’

    Museveni can never intimidate me. He can only intimidate himself ……… the
    President is becoming more of a coward and every day importing cars that are
    armor plated and bullet proof and you know moving in tanks and mambas, you
    know hiding with a mountain of soldiers surrounding him, he thinks that, that
    is security. That is not security. That is cowardice”

    Actually Museveni’s days are numbered if he goes on a collision course with
    me.”

    You mismanaged Garang’s Security. Are you saying it is Monitor that caused
    the death of Garang or it is your own mismanagement? Garang’s security was
    put in danger by our own Government putting him first of all on a junk
    helicopter, second at night, third passing through Imatong Hills where Kony
    is ?……Are you aware that your Government killed Garang?”

    I can never withdraw it. Police call them, I would say the Government of
    Uganda, out of incompetence led to or caused the death of Garang”

    When the state reached for iron law and charged him with sedition, the Constitutional Court answered with freedom, declaring that people from all backgrounds enjoy equal rights of expression, polite or not.

    “……Our people express their thoughts differently depending on the environment of their birth, upbringing and education.

    While a child brought up in an elite and God fearing society may know how to address an elder or leader politely, his counterpart brought up in a slum environment may make annoying and impolite comments, honestly believing that, that is how to express him/herself.

    All these different categories of people in our society enjoy equal rights under the Constitution and the law. And they have equal political power of one vote each.Then came the killer line that buried sedition:

    “……During elections voters make very annoying and character assassinating remarks and yet in most cases false, and yet no prosecutions are preferred against them. The reason is because they have a right to criticize their leaders rightly or wrongly. The Court concluded “Leaders should grow hard skins to bear.”
    A copy of the judgment can be found here:

    Mwenda and Another v Attorney General 2010 UGCC 9 (25 August 2010)Download



    Burkina Faso: The Continental Echo

    In Burkina Faso, journalist Issa Konaté was jailed for calling a prosecutor “a criminal in a robe.” In his Words:

    “…….The Prosecutor of Faso is the godfather of bandits. He is the sponsor, the organizer, the leader of a vast network of counterfeiters and traffickers that he protects with his power and status.”
    This is a prosecutor who does not prosecute crime, he commands it. He is not a guardian of order but a godfather of disorder
    While honest citizens sleep in fear, the chief lawman of our nation sits in his office, dividing the spoils of crime with police officers and bankers
    He is not a magistrate; he is a criminal in a robe. A saboteur of justice…….”



    The African Court answered with thunder and reason. Custodial sentences for speech are a bludgeon against Democracy:
    “The Court is of the view that the violations of laws of freedom of speech and the press cannot be sanctioned by custodial sentences, without going contrary to the provisions of Articles 9 and 19 of the Charter”

    The Court pronounced itself on the role of public figures under scrutiny.

    “There is no doubt that a prosecutor is a public figure; as such he is more exposed than an ordinary individual and is subject to many and more severe criticisms. Given that, a higher degree of tolerance is expected of him”

    A copy of the judgment can be found here:

    Konate vs Bukina FasoDownload


    From this we learn that “Power must endure insult to remain clean.”


    🪶 The Heritage; The Lango Grammar of Reproof

    This civic logic is not foreign to us. In Lango, the sharp tongue has long done the work of reform.

    • “Ole yin ibedo dako dako”; “…..you man, you behave womanly…”. It is not cruelty. It is shock therapy for duty and clarion call for the family patriarch to “man up” and live up to his responsibilities to his family, to lead firmly, provide for it and protect it.

    • “Lango mito alek”; “…..Lango deserves a pestle…” A reminder that discipline is coming unless reform comes first and that it intact comes usually after enforced discipline.


    • “Kwany Ka Point” The Gen Z’s and Millenials have similarly curved their own wisdom, “pick only the point”: As plain and simple as that. Pick only the point, filter it from the insult.


    • “Ikok Ugali idogi.”  “…..You will cry with Ugali in your mouth. …”


    In the old rite of passage, a young man’s two upper incisors were pulled, and boiling herbal Ugali was placed in his mouth to ease the agony. He cried through the very remedy meant to heal. Reform rarely feels like mercy.

    So when the citizen mocks the powerful, the intention is not cruelty; it is Ugali in the mouth of power: a necessary sting, a painful antidote.

    The insult becomes a civic anaesthetic; searing, brutally  humiliating, but designed to cleanse and restore legitimacy

    Reform rarely feels like mercy.
    So when the citizen insults and mocks the powerful, the intention is not cruelty. It is Ugali in the mouth of power: a necessary sting, a painful antidote.


    🔥 The Repair — The Calculus of Force

    Public outrage, properly aimed, creates four fields of pressure that make corruption intolerable:

    1. Professional Ostracization: When integrity collapses, the social scaffolding of a career falls with it.


    2. Erosion of Authority: A judge who loses public confidence loses jurisdictional muscle and may in fact receive fewer to zero allocations of files to handle or minimal chances to be chosen to sit on a panel in the case of hearings in courts that are manned by more than one Judicial Officer.


    3. Legal and Institutional Siege: Scandal catalyses petitions, litigation, and oversight that eat at illegitimacy.


    4. Political Abandonment: The appointing power prefers a scapegoat to a scandal, forcing a “voluntary” exit.

    From this, we learn that insults are not instruments of mob rule; they are the social physics of accountability.Yet outrage alone is not reform. The sting must translate into architecture: cooling-off periods for judges, transparent appointments, and independent oversight with teeth. Shame, the direct consequence of insult, reveals the rot; law must excise it.


    ⚔️ The Awakening — The Price of Truth

    “The hyena who taught the village to see.”

    For too long, the Uganda Law Society was a sleeping giant while the temple burned. But the dry grass is now burning in Masaka.
    When the President of the Bar , the hyena who taught the village to see, lives in exile for refusing to apologise for truth, his banishment becomes the ultimate test.

    Isaac K Ssemakadde (SC) President of Uganda Law Society. Credit: Uganda Law Society Website.



    📜 The Counsel; A Call to the Bench and the People

    This is not an invitation to vulgarity for its own sake.
    Insult as a civic weapon must be wielded with evidence, not rumour; with satire steeped in fact, not malice.

    To the Judges:

    Grow the hard skins the Constitutional Court commanded you to have. Wear patience as armour, not menace. Treat insult as a thermometer, not as treason or contempt.

    When a citizen insults, ask: does this insult point to truth? If yes, answer in reason, remedy the wrong, and let the nation watch you Act. If not, let the insult fall like a pebble. The dignity and legitimacy of the bench is earned by magnanimity and the stoic creed of the 3 pillars of legitimacy namely Reflection (of law, values, norms and aspirations); Truth and by abiding by the Judicial Oath. It is not enforced by fury, bullying or jaling dissent.

    This doctrine requires courage from all sides. The Bar must be relentlessly courageous and fearless in its insult and ridicule while exacting in its ethics.

    The public must be loud and literate, hurl insults but bring evidence. Lawyers must translate courage into petitions, not merely WhatsApp gossip and tweets. The Legislature must codify protections for speech against disproportionate criminal sanction and the Judiciary must redicscover the humility of the oath, the most important leg of judicial legitimacy; to do justice without fear, favour, ill will or affection. 

    To

    the citizens: Wield the pen. Make the insult precise devastatingly; threads that link to missing pages, memes that reveal truth.


    🌞 The Benediction & Epilogue

    Lock and Roseau taught and we learnt from the social contract doctrine that all power, judicial power inclusive, like the communal bull, is never owned. It is loaned to serve, not to feast upon. Judicial officers are, therefore, commissioners, agents of the people, not monarchs. The people are the principal. When the agent betrays, the principal must insult loudly in true reprimand.


    If those entrusted with it betray the trust, the people must remind them, sometimes with satire, sometimes with searing words, that borrowed fire must warm, not burn.

    This is neither an incitement to violence nor a call for insurrection. It is a call to civil carnage against corruption, ritualised, and peaceful.

    Let the insults be sharp, witty, and relentless, and let them dismantle rotten cartels of impunity.
    Turn every courtroom cover into a public syllabus: transparent reasons, readable judgments, accountability writ in footnotes and public records.
    Make the institutions bleed truth, not people.

    To end illiteracy in justice, let every citizen wield the pen.

    Let the hyenas come. Let the baraza be noisy.

    Let society test the crown every morning until the judges can point, with open hands and clear reasons, and say:

    “Here is the flame.”

    Until then, press the grass. Let the crown be tried in daylight.
    Let the fire prove itself true.

    ✍️ Dedication

    This blog is dedicated to all prisoners, present and past, of conscience, self-expression, and free speech: Male Mabirizi Kiwanuka, Ivan Samuel Sebadduka J, and Isaac K. Ssemakadde (SC), President of the Uganda Law Society, for executing a civic duty tragically confused with contempt of court.

    Contempt must be reserved for direct obstruction of justice, not as a cudgel to discipline ridicule.
    Imprisoning insult and mockery is to forget the nature and source of judicial power: the people’s consent.

    May the Good Lord bless and protect you all.
    And may we witness, in our lifetime, thick-skinned judicial officers who treat insults with nothing more than “a wry smile,”
    as aptly put twenty-five years ago by the eminent British jurist, Lord Justice Simon Brown.

    The author is a member of the inaugural Judiciary Affairs Committee of the Uganda Law Society.

    DISCLAIMER: This Blog is not a call for mob justice, chaos or disorder against our beloved holders of judicial power and other public power, it is brutal and defiant reminder that illegitimate conduct leads to a withdrawal of respect from the very owners of the power and attracts criminal and administrative sanctions, some as grave as removal from office. It is also to encourage the clean and disciplined judicial officers to continue upholding the consent of the people for them to administer justice by upholding the stoic pillars of legitimacy first mentioned in this Blog, and that with or without climbing the career ladder, God, the original designer of justice will be the ultimate one to reward their efforts both now and in the afterlife.

    This blog is not intended to be used as legal advice, and the author denies liability for use of the contents herein as legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult a licensed Advocate to give them specialised advice and representation.

    For feedbacks and comments: ambrosenen@gmail.com. 

    References.

    For further reading or references. I consulted the following books.

    1. Politics as a Vocation (Politik als Beruf) by Max Weber

    2. Second Treatise of Government” by John Locke.

    3. The Social Contract” (Du contrat social) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

    4. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance” by James C. Scott.

    5. How to Do Things with Words” by J.L. Austin.

  • OF CHAINS AND ROBES: When the Judiciary Surrendered Its Soul at the Altar of Power

    OF CHAINS AND ROBES: When the Judiciary Surrendered Its Soul at the Altar of Power



    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

    Ssemakadde v Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) 2025 UGHCCRD 17 (11 April 2025)Download

    Read also about the international arrest warrant against President Isaac K. Ssemakade and why it was an embarrassment to the whole of Uganda’s Legal system here: https://enenlegalworld.wordpress.com/2025/03/20/red-alert-ssemakadde-and-ugandas-judiciary-in-the-international-firestorm/

    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:

    Dr. KB and Obeid Ruling On BailDownload



    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.

  • Red Alert: Ssemakadde and Uganda’s Judiciary in the International Firestorm

    Red Alert: Ssemakadde and Uganda’s Judiciary in the International Firestorm

    Image: President Isaac Kimaze Ssemakade. Image Credit: Isaac Ssemakade’s X(formerly Twitter post)

    Uganda’s judiciary just went full-on nuclear—and there’s no holding back. On New Law Year day, the very system that’s supposed to be the bastion of justice turned into a circus. The ULS President got stonewalled, the Chief Justice practically demanded an apology, and then came the blow—Justice Ssekana slammed down a two-year sentence on Ssemakadde for contempt of court. It wasn’t just a ruling; it was a middle finger to anyone who dared question the establishment.

    And if that wasn’t enough, the entire scandal is being dragged into the international arena. The Judiciary, in a move that can only be described as a self-inflicted public relations massacre, has tried to weaponize an Interpol Red Notice for an offense as laughably flimsy and culturally controversial as  “insulting the modesty of a woman.” Yes, you read that right. While Interpol is busy chasing down genuine threats, war Lords, Drug cartels, Uganda’s courts are out here acting like they’re in a personal vendetta—pursuing a man for throwing sharp words at the system.

    The madness deepens: the whole legal shambles that produced the warrant is under revision in the High Court, completely unattended, like a sinking ship left to rot. And guess what? Ssemakadde isn’t going down without a fight. He’s vowed, through his legal team, to challenge any Red Notice that dares to be issued against him—an audacious promise that practically screams “bring it on!”

    Meanwhile, the Executive and Parliament, both seasoned in navigating international diplomacy, stand in stark contrast to the Judiciary’s response. Having faced sanctions, blacklisting, and travel bans in the past, they are well-versed in managing the complex web of international scrutiny, asset freezes, and the like. Who doesn’t recall the free Bobi Wine protests that rocked global capitals. Who doesn’t recall a foreign affairs minister who was on global travel sanctions. Have we very quickly forgotten the backlash from Western states when the Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Act was passed into Law and upheld by the Constitutional Court. Experts and negotiators from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs burnt the midnight oil and the Ugandan state is still here to stay. The Judiciary, however, is primarily trained in upholding decorum, judicial conduct, and domestic legal frameworks. It is ill-equipped to handle the nuances of foreign policy, international relations, and diplomacy. So, the real question is: if the international community begins to ask hard-hitting questions about accountability and the rule of law—questions that go beyond the courtroom—will the Attorney General and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs step in to shield the Judiciary from the fallout? Or will they be left to fend for themselves, with their lack of expertise in international relations becoming glaringly apparent?

    Yes, development partners like the European Union, funders of the SUPREME project, Pepperdine University behind the plea bargain project, IDLO, Amnesty International, the Democratic Governance Facility (who knows they may come back) will have key questions about transparency, accountability and Rule of Law, directly addressed to our third estate about where their Millions of Aid is going. They will not be amused if they think their resources are being deployed to fight what appears to be petty fights.

    And what more, individual partner states with a long tradition of democracy may refuse to hand over President Ssemakade on grounds that the Red Notice is politically motivated and targeting free speech and dissent. Dramatically enough, interpol itself may refuse to put out the Red Notice, why? It goes against the Interpol Constitution. The offense leading up to the warrant isn’t listed as one of those for which a Red Notice can be put out and enforced.

    This isn’t your everyday legal drama; it’s a blood-soaked, high-stakes showdown where the very soul of Uganda’s justice system is on trial. Ssemakadde, with the cunning of a renegade professor from Money Heist, baited the Judiciary into a carefully crafted trap. Just like the Professor orchestrated the heists with meticulous precision, Ssemakadde pulled off a legal masterstroke, using the Judiciary’s own flaws against it. His provocation wasn’t a reckless act of defiance; it was a radical surgery planned to expose the raw, festering wounds of Uganda’s ailing legal system. The Judiciary walked straight into his trap, and now the courts stand naked and vulnerable on the global stage.

    So here we are, witnessing a system that once prided itself on upholding justice now doing a complete 180 into chaos. The Judiciary has thrown down the gauntlet, and if the international community decides to respond, it won’t be a pretty sight. The madness is palpable, the stakes are astronomical, and the fallout could reshape Uganda’s legal landscape forever.

    At this point, there’s only one entity that can pull Uganda’s judiciary back from the brink of absolute disaster: the relevant High Court Judge. The request for a Red Notice is a ticking time bomb, and if it’s not halted right here, within the Judiciary itself, the fallout will be catastrophic. The international community is already watching, and Uganda’s fragile legal system is on the verge of being exposed in the harshest possible light. This isn’t just about one man; this is about the future of Uganda’s justice system and its credibility on the world stage.

    But amid the chaos, there’s still hope. There are still clean judges, magistrates, and lawyers who believe in the integrity of the law and the values of justice. This system is not beyond redemption, but it’s going to take those who truly care about upholding the rule of law to stand up, speak out, and fight for a better, fairer future. This moment—this unprecedented crisis—can be the turning point for Uganda’s legal system if the right people step forward.

    The Judiciary stands at a crossroads. If swift, decisive action isn’t taken now, Uganda’s courts will find themselves at the heart of a global scandal—a bloodbath of embarrassment from which there may be no recovery. This is the moment of truth. The question is: will the Judiciary rise to the occasion, or will it collapse under the weight of its own mistakes?

    The clock is ticking, and the time for action is now. The relevant High Court Judge holds the key—let them make the right call before it’s too late.

    DISCLAIMER: This Blog is not made to attack the institution of the Judiciary but to spark conversations and discourse on vital reforms.

    More about the author on the about page for feedback and comments.

  • BANG! MILITARY COURTS FOR CIVILIANS ARE DEAD—THE SUPREME COURT JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER, AND THE RADICAL NEW BAR LIT THE FUNERAL PYRE!

    BANG! MILITARY COURTS FOR CIVILIANS ARE DEAD—THE SUPREME COURT JUST DROPPED THE HAMMER, AND THE RADICAL NEW BAR LIT THE FUNERAL PYRE!

    The Supreme Court has spoken. The revolution has won. The military courts are finished. It took 25 years of legal battles, endless delays, and the relentless fire of Uganda’s most radical legal minds, but justice has finally arrived. And when it came, it wasn’t subtle. It came with the full force of the Constitution, a gavel so loud it could shake the foundations of every military courtroom still pretending to be a temple of justice.

    This is not just a legal victory; it is a demolition job on a long-standing abuse of power. It is the final nail in the coffin for a system that has for decades terrorized civilians, dragging them before military tribunals as if they were rogue soldiers, silencing dissent under the guise of national security. And the Supreme Court? Oh, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment with flair, with humor, and with the kind of clarity that leaves no room for debate.

    Chief Justice Owiny-Dollo, ever the master of courtroom theatre, laid it all bare in ways that had the entire legal fraternity both laughing and nodding in agreement. Imagine a Uganda where he, a civilian, is picked to lead a military brigade to guard the war-torn eastern border with the DRC. Imagine him, clad in combat gear, barking orders to soldiers while probably asking them which way to point a gun. Or worse—picture him in a hospital theatre, standing over an unconscious patient, scalpel in hand, completely clueless about whether he’s holding a kidney or a liver. Madness, right? Exactly. That, he said, is the absurdity of putting untrained military officers in charge of dispensing justice.

    This was the point where even the most rigid courtroom observer had to chuckle. But beneath the humor was a devastating truth: military courts are tribunals run by people without the first clue about judicial procedure, yet they have spent years presiding over cases, handing down life sentences and convictions like they were distributing rations at a military mess. The Chief Justice didn’t mince his words. The Constitution was clear, and so was the Court—military justice is for military personnel, period. Civilians have no business being tried there.

    And yet, as the judgment was delivered, there was another remarkable moment. Counsel Caleb Alaka, one of Uganda’s legal firebrands, stood up and did something few saw coming—he apologized. On behalf of the Uganda Law Society, he expressed regret for the extreme activism, the relentless pressure, the public letters, the weekly legal firebombs the Radical New Bar had been hurling at the Supreme Court, demanding action. The judges listened, some perhaps amused, others with the quiet satisfaction of warriors who had just emerged victorious in a long and bloody intellectual battle.

    The apology was sincere, but let’s be honest—this war was necessary. The Radical New Bar, under the fearless and uncompromising leadership of Isaac K. Ssemakadde, fought like hell to make this ruling happen. The legal establishment had long grown too comfortable, too resigned to waiting indefinitely for judgments while civilians continued to be dragged before military tribunals. The RNB was having none of it. Weekly press conferences, legal activism so sharp it cut through the silence, direct challenges to judicial inertia—this was lawfare at its finest. And in the end, the pressure worked.

    The judgment is now out, and the message is clear: no more military courts for civilians. No more kangaroo justice. No more legal intimidation. If the army wants to try someone, that person better be wearing a uniform. Otherwise, they belong in the courts of law established by the Constitution. And for those still clinging to the old ways, still hoping that military justice can be used as a tool of fear and suppression? Pack up your case files. Your era is over.

    For the Uganda People’s Defence Forces, the ruling leaves no room for negotiation. Civilians currently facing trial in military courts must be released. Every ongoing case must be dropped. Any attempt to defy this ruling will not just be illegal—it will be suicidal. The ULS and the RNB are watching. The Supreme Court is watching. And the Ugandan people, tired of impunity, will not tolerate another second of this nonsense.

    Parliament? Time to clean house. The UPDF Act needs to be amended—immediately. Those loopholes that allowed military courts to overstep their jurisdiction must be sealed permanently. No more ambiguity, no more exploitation of civilians through legal gymnastics. This ruling has set the standard, now it’s up to lawmakers to ensure the law reflects it. And the Executive? The President, the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions—they need to act. Not tomorrow, not next week. Now.

    For those who still think this is just another ruling, another judgment to be ignored or manipulated—think again. This is the beginning of a new era. The days when military courts were used as tools of intimidation are gone. The days when civilians had to fear being hauled before unqualified military judges who don’t know the difference between fair trial rights and a parade drill are gone. This is what victory looks like.

    Uganda’s legal profession will never be the same. The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its place in history. The Radical New Bar has cemented its reputation as the most effective force for legal accountability in modern Uganda. And the Constitution? It has won. The rule of law has won. Justice has won.

    The revolution is here, and it has no brakes.

    A copy of the Judgment can be found here

    AG v Hon Micheal Kabaziguruka SC Const Appeal N_250131_153316Download

    The statement of the Uganda Law Society welcoming the Judgment can be found here

    supreme court statementDownload

    Enen Ambrose is a Rule of Law enthusiast and a supporter of the firebrand president of the Uganda Law Society, Isaac K Ssemakade.

    Disclaimer: This write up is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as a substitute for professional legal advice. Readers are advised to seek the services of a qualified attorney in their area of Jurisdiction for situation specific legal advice and course of action.

    Do you have a story in your community that sheds light on the Rule of Law discourse that you want us to discuss about? Or do you have valuable constructive feedback for us?

    Please reach out to us on, ambrosenen@gmail.com or +256789856805

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

    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.

  • The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay Evidence: A Key to Justice in Customary Land Disputes

    Brief introduction.

    In legal disputes involving customary land, evidence rules can create challenges for communities reliant on oral traditions. While courts traditionally exclude hearsay evidence due to reliability concerns, the principled approach to hearsay evidence accommodates oral histories when they meet specific criteria. This approach is invaluable in ensuring justice, particularly in disputes where written documentation is absent.

    A recent case in Uganda, Osele Yusuf & Others v. Oruni Odwar John & Others, highlights the importance of this approach. The High Court of Uganda at Soroti upheld a trial court decision favoring the respondents, descendants of Oruni Yona, in a land dispute. The case provides an excellent example of how the principled approach can validate oral testimony while balancing the need for credible evidence.

    Brief Facts of the Case

    The dispute centered on 2¼ square miles of land in Ngariam village. The respondents claimed the land as a customary inheritance from their late father, Oruni Yona, who had acquired it during the colonial era. They alleged that Yona was gifted the land by local families and had expanded it through clearing and cultivation.

    The appellants, descendants of a local chief, argued that Yona had only occupied a small plot as a temporary settler. They began asserting ownership in 2014 by inviting the Area Land Committee to demarcate the land, which the respondents opposed. The trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, citing oral evidence corroborated by physical markers such as graves, homesteads, and cultivated fields.

    The Principled Approach to Hearsay evidence.

    The appellate judge affirmed the trial court’s reliance on oral evidence, applying the principled approach to hearsay. This framework allows hearsay evidence if it satisfies two criteria:

    1. Necessity: The evidence must be essential because the original source is unavailable. In this case, Yona was deceased, and oral testimony was the only way to trace the history of the land.


    2. Reliability: The evidence must be trustworthy, based on consistency with other facts, the reputation of the source, and the absence of bias. The court found Yona’s accounts credible as they predated the dispute and aligned with physical evidence observed during the locus visit.



    Integration of Oral History.

    The court’s acceptance of oral evidence reflects lessons from Canadian jurisprudence, particularly in indigenous land claims. In Delgamuukw v. British Columbia (1997), the Supreme Court of Canada emphasized that oral histories represent vital evidence in communities without written records. Uganda’s adoption of this approach recognizes the cultural realities of customary practices.

    Key Observations

    During a locus visit, the court confirmed:

    Graves of Yona’s family members, dating back decades.

    Remains of homesteads and cultivated fields, demonstrating long-term possession.

    Contradictions in the appellants’ claims, such as inconsistencies about the size and location of the plot allegedly occupied by Yona.


    These findings supported the trial court’s conclusion that the respondents’ oral testimony was credible and reliable. The appellants’ failure to provide consistent evidence weakened their claims.

    A Culturally Sensitive Framework

    The principled approach bridges the gap between strict legal rules and cultural realities. By evaluating oral testimony critically yet fairly, courts can ensure that justice accommodates diverse traditions. In customary land disputes, this approach protects claimants from procedural disadvantages while upholding the integrity of legal proceedings.

    Conclusion

    The Osele Yusuf case underscores the value of the principled approach in addressing customary land disputes. By allowing hearsay evidence when it is necessary and reliable, courts ensure that justice is inclusive and equitable. This approach not only validates oral traditions but also sets a precedent for resolving disputes in culturally informed and historically sensitive ways.

    The Appellants were represented by Counsel Mugoda Denis of Mugoda-Nangulu & Co. Advocates whereas the Respondents were represented by Enen Ambrose of M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    The full Judgment in the case can be accessed from here:

    Osele vs Oruni JudgmentDownload

    DISCLAIMER: This blog post is for educational and awareness purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional Legal advice covering specific legal situations. The author accepts absolutely no responsibility for any injuries, legal or otherwise that arises from using the information contained here in. Readers of the blog post are strictly advised to seek professional Legal advice from a qualified Attorney in their areas of Jurisdiction to obtain situation specific advice covering their legal problems.

    About the author.

    Enen Ambrose is an Advocate of the Courts of Judicature and currently practicing with M/S Okurut-Magara Associated Advocates.

    Contact us.

    Email: ambrosenen@gmail.com

    Asiku Road, Adjumani Town Council, Adjumani District

    +256789856805
  • Standing Against Digital Harassment: A Victory for Privacy and Dignity for KS against AM & KSM High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division Case No. 2021/128121

    Standing Against Digital Harassment: A Victory for Privacy and Dignity for KS against AM & KSM High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division Case No. 2021/128121

    In a world where social media and technology are central to our lives, the misuse of these tools can lead to devastating consequences. One recent legal case highlights how the justice system can protect victims of online harassment and uphold their dignity and privacy.

    The case involved a woman whose privacy was severely violated by her former romantic partner and his wife. After their brief relationship ended, the former partner secretly used intimate videos—recorded without her knowledge or consent—to harm her. These videos were posted on a fake social media account created to embarrass and defame her.

    The fake account targeted the woman’s family, friends, and professional colleagues, inviting them to view the harmful content. The abuse went further when the defendants sent messages to the woman’s workplace, spreading false information to tarnish her reputation.

    The impact on the woman’s life was severe. She faced humiliation, emotional trauma, and even suicidal thoughts. She had to leave her job due to the embarrassment caused by the public exposure, and her trust in others was deeply shaken. The stress also led to health issues, including hair loss and complications with pre-existing conditions.

    The victim took legal action, seeking compensation for the damage caused to her personal and professional life. The court found the defendants’ actions to be deliberate and harmful, infringing on her rights to privacy, dignity, and mental well-being.

    This case serves as a powerful reminder that online harassment, including the non-consensual sharing of intimate images, is a serious violation of human rights. Laws now exist to protect individuals from such actions, ensuring that those responsible face legal consequences.

    In an increasingly digital world, it is essential for everyone to understand the importance of respecting others’ privacy. This ruling is not just a victory for the victim but also a message that justice can be achieved in the face of online abuse.

    The full Judgment of the Case can be found here:

    KS v AM and AHM-1Download

    About the author:

    Enen Ambrose, Advocate of the Courts of Judicature in Uganda, practicing with M/S Okurut-Magara Magara Associated Advocates, Adjumani.

    DISCLAIMER: The information provided in this blog is not intended to serve as legal advice and the author accepts no responsibility or liability for any injuries, Legal or otherwise from the use of this information as legal advice. For situation specific advise, the author strongly advises readers to consult a qualified attorney in their area of jurisdiction to advise and assist with the legal problem.

    Contact us:

    ambrosenen@gmail.com
    +256789856805