Ssemakadde asks court to quash warrant of arrest against him

It held that the framework unlawfully required a magistrate to act as an investigator, charge-preferring officer and judge in the same matter, violating the non-derogable right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal.

Ssemakadde’s lawyers argue that the charge, the process and the warrant all resulted from that unconstitutional procedure.

Citing Lord Denning’s decision in Macfoy versus United Africa Company Limited (1961), Ssemakade's lawyers contend that proceedings founded on a void legal framework are a nullity.

“By a warrant of arrest dated March 19, 2025, issued by His Worship Ronald Kayizzi, this honourable court commanded any police officer in Uganda and the international police to apprehend our client and bring him before this court to answer a charge of insulting the modesty of a woman, contrary to section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act,” the lawyers' letter said.

The lawyers added; “The proceedings were instituted by private prosecutors pursuant to section 42 of the Magistrate's Courts Act. We move this court, under the broad remedial jurisdiction conferred by section 11(2) of the Magistrate's Courts Act, to quash the said warrant and all the underlying criminal proceedings, and to discharge the accused.”

The lawyers said the entire case rests on a nullity, and that section 11(2) gives the court a proper means of recognising this and ending the matter immediately. This, they argue, would allow all matters in dispute to be finally determined and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.

They also attack the offence itself, arguing that the Constitutional Court ordered that “any person” be read in place of “a woman or a girl” in the interim, and directed the Attorney General to introduce an amending Bill within 12 months to make the offence gender-neutral and define the prohibited conduct precisely. They also argue that the court expressly recognised that the provision remains unenforceable in its present form until such a definition is enacted.

“An offence that fails the certainty requirement of the principle of legality cannot sustain a criminal prosecution or a warrant of arrest,” they argue.

The lawyers say Ssemakadde has suffered grave prejudice since the warrant was issued, citing damage to his liberty, career and livelihood, freedom of movement and travel, political and associational rights, and family life, as well as stigma.

They add that anyone harmed by Ssemakadde's alleged speech remains free to pursue civil proceedings, since the criminal process is no longer a lawful vehicle.

“We respectfully request that this matter be set down for hearing at the earliest opportunity, time being of essence. We will be honoured to supply this honourable court with all the authorities cited herein during the hearing,” the lawyers said.

The charge was preferred after a complaint on oath by private prosecutors Tonny Tumukunde and Joshua Byamazima, who accused Ssemakadde of insulting Abodo, who now serves as the Principal Judge.

Ssemakadde still faces other legal battles. In October 2025, Justice Musa Ssekaana sentenced him to two years in jail for contempt of court. He has since appealed the decision and filed an application to stay its implementation.

Elected ULS president in September 2024, Ssemakadde has spent most of his tenure in self-exile because of the cases against him.

He was due to serve one year but remains in office because the courts issued injunctions stopping the ULS from convening an annual general meeting.

As a result, the society is yet to appoint its two representatives to the Judicial Service Commission, the constitutional body responsible for recruiting and disciplining judicial officers in Uganda.