enenlegalworld

Tag: Judicial Service Commission

  • 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.

  • Uganda Needs Judges with Balls of Titanium Alloy—Not the Shackles of the JSC Regulations, 2025: Why You Should Be Worried

    Uganda Needs Judges with Balls of Titanium Alloy—Not the Shackles of the JSC Regulations, 2025: Why You Should Be Worried


    Let’s not waste time.
    Uganda’s judiciary has been hijacked. Quietly. Legally. Treacherously.

    They didn’t need a coup d’état. They just needed Statutory Instrument No. 4 of 2025—the Judicial Service Commission Regulations—to pass unchallenged.

    You can access a copy of those regulations here:

    JUDICIAL SERVICE COMISSION-04152025211719_250416_194252-compressedDownload



    And now the Constitution isn’t bleeding.

    It’s on life support. Plugged into a system designed to kill it slowly.

    Judges on Acting Terms. Courts on Probation. Justice on the Brink.



    Here’s what they’ve done:

    Invented a system where new judges are appointed on in an acting capacity, with the duration determined at the whims of the appointing authority—yes, like interns at a mobile money kiosk.

    Given the President the power to recycle retired judges, no questions asked. No medical. No mental. No morals.

    Created performance evaluations for judges like they’re applying for a promotion at a law firm.

    That’s right, you’re not day dreaming, the system was rigged. In 2022, the Constitutional Court damned this shrewd “sharp practice” and threw it in our Constitutional History by declaring it unconstitutional in Dr. Busingye Kabumba and Karamagi vs Attorney General.

    A copy of that decision can be found here:

    Kabumba and Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No 15 of 2022) 2022 UGCC 8 (7 December 2022)Download

    Good judgment, right? Damn, the government rigged it. It instead created a legal loophole which enabled it to pass these damned Regulations. 

    Firstly, it appealed against.  Secondly  the government obtained what is in effect  a suspension of the independence of the Judiciary as the Supreme Court delays to decide the Government’s Appeal .

    A copy of the decision which suspended the independence of High Court Judges as the government waits for a decision in its own appeal from the above case can be accessed from here:

    Attorney General v Kabumba Another (Constitutional Application 16 of 2022) 2023 UGCC 117 (6 June 2023)Download


    Okay, let’s dive into the evil in the Regulations.
    Reg. 29–33 and 31 are the smoking guns.
    And what they shoot is judicial independence—straight between the eyes.

    And Then There’s 2026…

    Uganda’s next elections are not just around the corner—they’re rumbling like thunder.

    And we know the script:

    Mass arrests.

    Disappearances.

    Violent suppression.

    Habeas corpus applications flying like confetti.

    Human rights cases lined up like a firing squad.


    It will take judges to hear them all.

    But what kind of judges?

    Not fearless ones. Not permanent ones. Not independent ones.

    The Regulations guarantee this:

    When the state comes for you, the judge before you may still be “acting,” “probationary,” or “awaiting confirmation.”

    You don’t need a judge praying for job security.

    You need a judge with balls forged from titanium alloy, ready to grab the State by its ball sac and say:

    “Back off. The Constitution says this citizen walks free.”

    These Regulations can’t produce that judge.
    They produce whispering cowards in robes.

    But Wait, There’s a Recruitment Cartel Too

    They didn’t just kill judicial independence at the appointment level.

    They also built a Search and Recruitment Committee—and a Sub-Committee—with a quorum of TWO people.

    Let that sink in:
    Two people can now shortlist Uganda’s judges.

    Who are these people?

    The Attorney General—yes, the government’s own lawyer.

    The Chairperson of the JSC—currently Justice Singiza, who was once branded a “Nazi Judge” by opposition supporters for adjourning Besigye’s habeas corpus case instead of hearing it urgently.


    And guess who they kicked out of this process?

    The two (2) representatives of the Uganda Law Society.

    The very people the Constitution says should be part of the Judicial Service Commission.

    It Was Planned. Timed. Executed.

    These Regulations were passed while the Uganda Law Society is in court, fighting to elect its representatives.

    The plan is clear:
    Keep them out. Lock the process down. Staff the courts with friendly judges. Control the law from the inside out.

    This isn’t just bad law.

    It’s a judicial cartel in robes.

    And You Think It Doesn’t Affect You?

    Wait until your land is taken.
    Wait until your protest turns into a prison sentence.
    Wait until your loved one disappears.
    Wait until the courtroom is the only place left to cry out.

    Then you’ll pray that your judge isn’t still auditioning for a contract renewal.

    Here’s the Message:

    Uganda’s justice system is being rebuilt—not to protect you, but to survive you.

    It is no longer about law.
    It’s about control.
    It’s about loyalty.
    It’s about silencing justice before you can even plead for it.

    This is the war. This is the moment. This is the alarm.

    If you have eyes you better see, and if you have ears you better listen.

    More about me and disclaimer in the about page.

  • Mugambe’s Fall: A Clash of Legal Systems and the Struggle Between Impunity and Accountability

    Mugambe’s Fall: A Clash of Legal Systems and the Struggle Between Impunity and Accountability



    Uganda’s legal system has long been a fortress of impunity. For decades, it has survived every attempt at reform—not by improving, but by dismantling anyone who dares to fix it.

    Enter Isaac Ssemakadde, Uganda Law Society (ULS) President.

    His mission? To drag the legal profession out of the mud, rebuild public trust, and hold the entire system accountable.

    His first strike? Kicking the Attorney General off the ULS Governing Council. Why? Because how does a government’s top lawyer sit in the governing body of an institution meant to be an independent watchdog? It was a classic case of conflict of interest, and Ssemakadde terminated it.

    Image: Isaac K Ssemakade. Photo Credit: Insight Post Uganda


    His second move? Recalling all unelected ULS representatives to the Judicial Service Commission (JSC)—a body meant to discipline errant judges. For too long, these positions had been filled by handpicked placeholders who were cozy with the very Judiciary they were supposed to regulate.

    Then, the nuclear option—a ULS-led Public Commission of Inquiry into the entire Bench.

    That was the moment the Judiciary declared war.

    A full-scale investigation into judicial corruption, impunity, and accountability? The Judiciary saw what was coming—a public trial of the very system that has shielded the powerful for decades.

    And so, they struck first.

    A High Court Judge—who, it has been reported, was allegedly involved in sexual harassment allegations—injuncted the entire process and had Ssemakadde convicted of contempt of court with a two-year jail sentence.

    Yes, you read that right.

    A judge in a case where he was allegedly the victim, presiding over a trial that could expose him, convicted the man leading the movement for reform.

    The Judiciary had gone into full-blown self-preservation mode.

    And while Uganda’s legal system was busy eating its own, something very different was unfolding in the UK.

    A Ugandan judge—Justice Lydia Mugambe—was convicted.

    And suddenly, Uganda got a front-row seat to what real judicial accountability looks like.

    No judicial gymnastics. No vanishing case files. No presidential interference.

    Just a judge facing the law like any other citizen.

    And here’s the real kicker—the UK wasn’t just convicting a judge.

    They were sending a message.

    Uganda’s human rights record had rotted beyond acceptable limits.

    Opposition National Unity Platform (NUP) supporters were reportedly tortured, arbitrarily detained, and held without trial. The UK had already slapped sanctions on key Ugandan officials. And now, Uganda’s backdoor diplomatic channels in London were reportedly frozen.

    Word on the street? NUP had played quiet but strategic backdoor diplomacy, exposing Uganda’s entrenched impunity to the UK foreign office—and the UK listened.

    This wasn’t just about Mugambe.

    It was Uganda being held accountable—one way or another.

    Because in Uganda, justice serves the powerful. In the UK, it serves the law.

    And so, as Judge Mugambe awaits sentencing on May 2nd, 2025, we extend our best wishes.

    Not because of what she did or didn’t do, but because this entire mess is a reflection of a broken system back home.

    The Hon. Lady Justice Lydia Mugambe. Photo Credit: Daily monitor



    To all who still believe in the Rule of Law—even as the system crushes them—we see you.

    To the ULS candidates still battling for election to represent ULS to the JSC—who have outspent resources in what was supposed to be a simple election, but turned into a never-ending war—hold strong.

    The Judiciary stalled the election, an appeal halted the process, and yet—hope refuses to die.

    Because one day, impunity will fall.

    And when it does, it won’t be because of backroom deals.

    It will be because of the fearless ones—those who refused to let injustice win.

    And when that day comes, we won’t just be telling the story. We will be living it.

    Disclaimer:
    The views expressed in this blog are based on publicly available reports and sources. Allegations mentioned are unverified and are referred to as they have been reported. This post is an opinion piece aimed at encouraging dialogue and reflection on the issues discussed. The cases mentioned are subject to ongoing legal processes and investigations, and the information presented is intended for general awareness rather than legal conclusions.

    More about the author on the about Page.

    Do you have stories in your community that we should Blog about, or do you have comments to help us improve on our delivery?,  please feel free to reach out to us through our address which is on the about Page

  • NO APOLOGIES, NO SURRENDER: THE RADICAL NEW BAR TAKES THE JUDICIARY TO WAR

    NO APOLOGIES, NO SURRENDER: THE RADICAL NEW BAR TAKES THE JUDICIARY TO WAR


    The Judiciary wanted a fight. Now, it has a war.

    The New Law Year was supposed to be ceremonial—a chance for the Bench and the Bar to sip tea and pretend they liked each other. Instead, it became a crime scene.

    Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, tired of the Uganda Law Society’s relentless attacks, came out swinging. He stood before the nation, fists metaphorically clenched, voice dripping with fury.

    At first, he played innocent. Pretended he wasn’t the one who had gagged Isaac Ssemakadde. Then, unable to hold back, he let the truth slip.

    “I am the one who ordered that the President of the Uganda Law Society should not speak.”



    And then, like a man who had been waiting to explode, he thundered:

    “Only a fool, and I really mean it, it is only a fool who abuses you, insults you, dehumanizes you and thinks it will be business as usual. It cannot be business as usual unless you make amends.”



    Boom. There it was.

    The Judiciary was officially in its feelings.

    The message was clear: Bend the knee, apologize, or face consequences.

    But here’s the thing—Ssemakadde doesn’t kneel. The Radical New Bar doesn’t beg. And the Uganda Law Society doesn’t send apology cards.

    Ssemakadde’s response was swift, brutal, and final:

    “The Uganda Law Society doesn’t exist to soothe the Judiciary or assuage its egos. The Uganda Law Society’s role is to protect the Judiciary from Executive Overreach and to ensure public trust in the Judiciary.”



    Translation? Cry if you want. The Bar owes you nothing.

    THE BUILD-UP TO WAR: THE JUDICIARY’S NEVER-ENDING BLEEDING

    This wasn’t just an outburst. This was months of pent-up fury.

    The Judiciary had been bleeding out ever since the Radical New Bar declared war on its comfort zone.

    Executive Order No. 1 threw the Attorney General and Solicitor General out of the ULS Council.

    Executive Order No. 2 announced a Radical Surgery on the Judiciary—no anesthesia, just raw scalpel to the bone.

    Executive Order No. 3 didn’t just boycott Justice Musa Ssekana—it excommunicated him from the legal faith.


    Justice Ssekana, famous for delivering controversial and contradictory rulings had crossed a dangerous line.

    He had blocked ULS elections for its representative to the Judicial Service Commission. Many saw it as blatant Judicial Overreach—the Bench trying to control the Bar.

    The Radical New Bar did not take it lightly.

    A total boycott of Justice Ssekana’s courtroom. His rulings became legal noise—heard but never taken seriously.

    The ULS plaque that once honored him? REVOKED. PUBLICLY DISOWNED. SYMBOLICALLY BURNT.

    A whistleblower campaign launched, calling for evidence to have him removed for Judicial Misconduct.


    Ssekana was supposed to be finished.

    But Uganda’s Judiciary is like a bad magic trick—the more incompetent you are, the higher you rise.

    Instead of accountability, Ssekana is now pending vetting for the Court of Appeal.

    A man under public investigation for judicial misconduct is being lined up for a promotion.

    At this point, the Judiciary wasn’t just bleeding—it was leaking credibility like a sinking ship.

    THE KABAZIGURUKA JUDGMENT—WHEN REAL POWER SPOKE, THE JUDICIARY COWERED

    But let’s talk about the elephant in the room.

    The Uganda Law Society forced the Supreme Court to deliver the Kabaziguruka Judgment on January 31, 2025. It was a victory for the Rule of Law—civilians could no longer be tried in military courts.

    The Radical New Bar celebrated.

    And then, Gen. Muhoozi Kainerugaba entered the chat.

    Uganda’s Chief of Defense Forces. The President’s son. The man who commands tanks, fighter jets, and battle-hardened soldiers.

    He wasn’t impressed.

    He didn’t file for a review. He didn’t even bother to hide his disgust.

    He called the entire Supreme Court “clowns.”

    Then, he went further.

    “We are coming for you.”



    A direct threat. An undeniable challenge.

    If any civilian had said this, contempt of court summons would have been printed, signed, and delivered in minutes.

    But this was Uganda’s most powerful General.

    What did the Judiciary do?

    NOTHING.

    No warning. No condemnation. No outrage. Just silence.

    But when Ssemakadde calls out judicial incompetence? Suddenly, the Judiciary is offended.
    When Sebaduka criticizes the Bench? Suddenly, they have the power to throw someone in jail.

    Muhoozi tells the Supreme Court “we are coming for you,” and they act like they didn’t hear a thing.

    But when the Radical New Bar speaks, the Judiciary suddenly remembers how to fight.

    THE FINAL SHOWDOWN: THE PUBLIC INQUIRY IS COMING

    The Judiciary thought the worst was over? Not even close.

    Because Isaac Ssemakadde doesn’t just fight battles—he wages wars.

    Last year, he made a promise:

    The Uganda Law Society would not wait for the broken, spineless, toothless Judicial Service Commission to act.

    No more fake investigations. No more endless excuses. No more allowing compromised institutions to pretend they can police themselves.

    The ULS would marshal a PUBLIC COMMISSION OF INQUIRY into the entire Bench.

    And he gave the Judicial Service Commission a deadline—January 15, 2025—to furnish a report on its inquiry against Justice Ssekana.

    The deadline came and went.

    No report. No accountability. Just the same old game of protecting the powerful.

    Now, the ULS Governing Council has just completed its retreat. What were they doing? COMBING THROUGH PUBLICLY GATHERED EVIDENCE AGAINST JUSTICE SSEKANA.

    Evidence gathered as a result of Executive Order No. 3.

    The Judiciary wanted a fight? Now, it has a full-scale public investigation coming straight for its doorstep.

    And the Chief Justice still expects an apology?

    The ULS will not apologize to a judge they have been investigating for potential removal.

    The Judiciary wanted a war. Now, it’s getting one.

    The horns are locked. The trenches are dug. The battle lines are drawn.

    And if the Judiciary thought the Radical New Bar was dangerous before?

    They haven’t seen anything yet.

    This is no longer just a legal fight. This is institutional. This is existential. This is irreversible.

    Brace yourselves. 2025 is about to be the most explosive year in Ugandan legal history.

    NO APOLOGIES. NO COMPROMISES. NO MERCY.

    JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL.

    DISCLAIMER: This Blog is not intended to ridicule or attack the persons of the Honorable Chief Justice Alfonse Chigamoi Owiny Dollo, the Hon. Justice Musa Ssekana. It is purely public commentary on the spat that happened at the opening of the New Law Year at the Supreme Court, Kampala.

    The information contained in this Blog is not intended to be used as Legal advice. The author accepts no liability for injury arising from using the information contained in the Blog as Legal Advice. Readers are advised to seek the services of a qualified attorney in their area of Jurisdiction to deal with specific scenarios.

    Do you have a story that would contribute to the Rule of Law discussion that you want us to write about? Reach out to us at ambrosenen@gmail.com

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

    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

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

    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.

  • Reflections on Protecting the Radical New Bar Revolution: A Call for Integrity and Reform in the ULS Elections

    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

  • Safeguarding the Revolution: My Perspective on President Isaac K. Ssemakadde and the Radical New Bar

    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