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.
enenlegalworld 