Aggrieved Muslims to appeal against High Court verdict in Mubaje case

__________________

A group of Muslims challenging the re-election of Mufti of Uganda, Sheikh Shaban Ramadhan Mubaje, for another term of five years, say they will appeal against the High Court ruling, which upheld his stay in office, describing it as flawed.

In a ruling dated July 1, 2025, High Court Judge Bernard Namanya, invoking the religious question doctrine, ruled that courts are not competent to inquire into and resolve a religious dispute concerning the election of the Mufti.

“This religious dispute can best be resolved by leaders of the Muslim faith in Uganda, their followers and by Muslim leaders at a global level,” Namanya said.

Namanya noted that the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) is not a public body amenable to judicial review, and he thus referred the matter to the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC) established under Article 28 of the UMSC Articles of Association.

In a statement dated July 3, 2025, in reply to the court ruling, Swaibu Nsimbe, Twayibu Byansi, Musa Kalokora and Musa Kasakya, who were the applicants in the case, argue that Namanya abdicated his responsibility by declining to hear their legitimate complaint and instead dismissed their case on what they describe as deficient legal technicalities.

They argue that the judge erred in law and fact when he invoked the religious question doctrine to dismiss their case, arguing that the matter before court was about the election of the mufti under the secular constitution, which was enacted by civilian local individuals and registered under the Companies Act and not the interpretation of the Koran.

While the judge relied on the decision in the Luwero case of Anglican Archbishop Dr Steven Kaziimba Mugalu where court ruled that issues arising from the election of bishops under cannon laws amounts to religious doctrine and practices to dismiss the case, the trio argues that the election of the Mufti is not rooted in the Koran as opposed to the election of bishops under globally know and recognised Church Cannon law.

“From the above brief, we believe the above decision premised on distinguishable authorities and deficient legal technicalities entirely defeats the purpose of their secular Constitution,” they argue.

Byansi and the group also argue that the said Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC) has never been constituted, and it thus does not exist.

Lawyers Hamza Sewankambo, Rashid Kamulegeya and Farouq Kamulegeya argue that the court ruling only pushes Muslims to explore intense options to solve their long-standing secular and perennial leadership disputes, which Muslims endeavoured to solve when they amended their constitution, which process was funded with billions of money from the state.

They argue that this leaves Muslims with no option but to further engage the appellate court to legitimately waive the deficient technical barriers and open mainstream doors of justice to the Muslim community who seek substantive justice on matters regarding their secular administrative affairs, which does not in any way extend to Islamic law or religious practice.

While the court cited Article 29 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of worship and the right to subscribe to any faith, the lawyers argue that UMSC is not a faith and does not regulate the Islamic faith.

“Where on earth does a religious question doctrine arise from a governing document, enacted by ordinary people and incorporated or registered under local secular laws like the Companies Act in this case,” they say.

Sewankambo contends that UMSC, like any other Muslim legal entity such as the office of the Supreme Mufti at Kibuli, Nakasero, Juma and Zukuli and Bukoto-Nateete, are not the Islamic faith themselves but rather are purposed to facilitate the practice of the Islamic faith.

“UMSC is a secular temporary entity primarily aimed at mobilising resources to facilitate the practice of Islamic faith. No Islamic faith tenet was codified in the said secular UMSC constitution from which this matter arises,” Sewankambo argues.

Sewankambo was part of the committee that spearheaded the amendment of the UMSC constitution in 2022.

Byansi and the group argued that, having served for more than 24 years, far beyond the 10 years provided for under the new UMSC constitution, Mubaje was disqualified as per articles 5 and 29(12) of the Muslim constitution.

They wanted the court to issue an order directing the college of eminent sheikhs at UMSC, known as Majlis al-Ulama, to commence the process for electing and vetting the new Mufti.

The 70-year-old Mubaje has been at the helm of UMSC since December 2000, and the applicants argue that he does not qualify for another term of five years, having exceeded the 10 years provided for under the new Muslim constitution.

His stay in office is blamed for further dividing the Muslims in the country.

Conflicts within the Muslim community have existed since the arrival of Islam around 1844, save that originally the disputes were about the interpretation of the Quran. Disputes over leadership within the Muslim community started around 1960s. However, to date, no viable solution has been reached.