High Court stays trial of self-exiled Ssemakadde

________________

The High Court in Kampala has stayed the trial of self-exiled Uganda Law Society (ULS) president Isaac Ssemakadde, who is accused of insulting the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Jane Frances Abodo.

In a ruling dated April 10, 2025, High Court Judge Paul Gadenya noted that Ssemakadde had not only established a prima facie case warranting a stay of proceedings at the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates’ Court pending determination of his application for revision, but that the balance of convenience was also in his favour.

“I find it justifiable to grant a stay of proceedings before the lower court to safeguard the applicant’s right to liberty while the revision is underway,” Justice Gadenya ruled.

Justifying the stay of proceedings, the judge said this would ensure a fair process for both parties without the threat of serious consequences. He directed the parties to file their respective submissions regarding the substantive application by May 7, 2025, for consideration in determining the main application.

In his application for a stay, Ssemakadde argued that allowing the lower court to proceed could result in irreparable harm if its findings were later annulled by the High Court.

Background

On November 20, 2024, lawyers Joshua Byamazima and Tonny Tumukunde filed a complaint at Buganda Road Chief Magistrates’ Court requesting that Ssemakadde be summoned to answer a charge of insulting the modesty of a woman (Abodo).

The complaint was based on remarks made by Ssemakadde on November 18, 2024, while addressing members of the People’s Front for Freedom (PFF) at their offices on Katonga Road in Kampala. The complainants argued that the remarks were derogatory and contravened Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act, which criminalises insulting the modesty of a woman.

On that day, the PFF—a splinter group of the opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC)—was celebrating the release on bail of 36 of its members who had been arrested in Kenya, allegedly while attending a symposium on human rights. They were repatriated and charged with subversion at the Nakawa Chief Magistrates’ Court in Kampala. Ssemakadde was a guest speaker at the event.

Byamazima and Tumukunde argued that Ssemakadde’s utterances were intended to insult the modesty of a woman and intrude upon the privacy of Abodo.

Consequently, Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi issued a summons requiring Ssemakadde to appear and answer the charges. After he failed to appear, a warrant of arrest was issued against him.

In response, Ssemakadde filed an application in the High Court seeking a stay of proceedings in the lower court, pending a determination of his substantive application for nullification of the trial, citing infringement on his liberty.

He argued that the complaint and supporting affidavit did not disclose the commission of an offence, noting that the alleged offence is victim-centred and the complainants had failed to engage the alleged victim, Abodo.

“In the absence of the testimony of the alleged victim (Abodo of Karamoja), there is manifestly no reasonable and probable cause to believe that the proposed offence was committed,” Ssemakadde contends.

He further argued that the complaint and supporting affidavit were grossly incompetent, frivolous and vexatious, a mockery of concern for women’s rights, a breach of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and an abuse of court process.

According to Ssemakadde, the accusatory information on record is insufficient to warrant a formal charge.

“The impugned complaint on oath and supporting affidavit falsely and misleadingly present the alleged victim as a judge whereas she is not,” he states in an affidavit.

He also claims that the complaint and supporting affidavit falsely portray the alleged victim as a woman of unimpaired modesty, which he disputes.

Ssemakadde further argues that Byamazima and Tumukunde, the intended private prosecutors, have a pre-existing animosity towards him, which they deliberately failed to disclose to the court and other relevant authorities.

He concludes that the absence of a victim impact statement strips the court of jurisdiction to allow the intended private prosecution, as provided for under Sections 42(3) and 45(5) of the Magistrates Courts Act, which govern citizen-initiated private prosecutions.