Lawyer sues Chief Justice, Ssekaana

By Michael Odeng and Lydia Nadunga

KAMPALA - A Kampala lawyer, has sued Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo, for demanding that Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde apologise to Justice Musa Ssekanaa for allegedly insulting him with foul language.

Yasin Sentumbwe Munagomba, filed the suit against the Chief Justice, Ssekanaa and the Attorney General on February 14, 2025, at the Constitutional Court in Kampala.

The lawyer is arguing that the Chief Justice's ultimatum violates Articles 29(1) and 42 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of speech and the right to fair treatment in administrative decisions.

The lawyer asserts that the act of the Chief Justice amounts to blackmail, judicial harassment, abuse of judicial power, abuse of office and contravenes the Constitution.

The Chief Justice made the remarks during the New Law Year on February 10, this year.

Munagomba also states that the acts of Owiny-Dollo publicly declaring the Judiciary as an aggrieved party to all disputes concerning the ULS president and Ssekaana that are before the courts or judicial officers, and declaring a victory for the Judiciary in those disputes is inconsistent with Articles 28(1), 126 and 128 of the Constitution.

Article 28 speaks about right to fair hearing, 126 about administration of justice, and 128 about independence of Judiciary.

The lawyer also purports that Owiny-Dollo’s act of directly threatening the bar with administrative or other sanctions is inconsistent with the independence of the legal profession and fundamental constitutional principles.

Improper case prioritisation

He also contends that the act of leapfrogging matters and disputes in which Ssekaana is personally involved, including cases concerning the ULS and its president, while ignoring other matters now classified as backlog, demonstrates improper case prioritisation and management in violation of Articles 21 and 126, which speaks about non-discrimination and equality, 28 (1) which speaks about impartiality and 42 which speaks about fair treatment.

Munagomba further avers that the act of Ssekaana after having been appointed by President Yoweri Museveni as Justice of Court of Appeal and approved by Parliament, in commencing the hearing of a matter regarding his personal disputes with the ULS president in the High Court, raises serious concerns about judicial propriety and violates Articles 2 [Supremacy of Constitution], 126(1) [Exercise of judicial power and '128(2) [Non-interference in judicial processes].

The lawyer also contends that the acts of Ssekaana in failing to recuse himself in all matters concerning his personal disputes with the ULS president where he is an aggrieved party is inconsistent with Articles 28(1) & 44(c), which speaks about fair hearing, 126(1) [Exercise of judicial power], and 128(1) & (2) independence of the judiciary.

“The act of Ssekaana in refusing to hear an application filed by the ULS for his recusal in the matter from which a personal dispute with the ULS president emerged, contravenes Articles 28(1) & 44 [Fair hearing], 42 Fair treatment, and 126 [Administration of justice].

Prayers

The lawyer seeks a permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, and/or servants from continuing a campaign weaponising the government through judicial harassment, bias and reprisals against the ULS and its president.

Munagomba wants the court to issue an order of permanent stay of any proceedings (civil, criminal, or disciplinary) involving/concerning statements allegedly made by the ULS president about Ssekaana.

He seeks a declaration that courts and judicial officers can be critiqued as any other public body like the Executive, Legislature, military etc or their officers as the constitutional court has previously held.

The lawyer also wants the court to declare that the offence of scandalising the judiciary is unconstitutional.

Munagomba also seeks an order that Owiny-Dollo and Ssekaana should exercise judicial temperament and not allow their emotions to cloud their execution of official duties as judicial officers.