Lawyers want Justice Sebuturo to appear in court over child custody case
Jun 23, 2009
Lawyers in the child custody case against Court of Appeal judge Augustine Nshimye Sebuturo clashed in the Family Court over whether the judge should appear to defend his actions.
By Vision Reporter
Lawyers in the child custody case against Court of Appeal judge Augustine Nshimye Sebuturo clashed in the Family Court over whether the judge should appear to defend his actions.
Erias Lukwago, the lawyer for Anita Akello, the mother of the boy, had applied to the Mwanga II Court to order Justice Sebuturo to appear before the court and explain the discrepancies in his affidavit.
According to Lukwago, Sebuturo stated that he swore the affidavit before the commissioner of oaths, yet the affidavit did not bear the commissioner’s stamp.
He said the affidavit instead bore the stamp of the Court of Appeal, where the judge works.
Lukwago also argued that apart from a signature, the affidavit did not indicate the name of the commissioner.
He also wanted the judge to explain why he took the child forcefully from its mother.
Oyine Ronald Katabarwa, the lawyers for Sebuturo, however, objected, saying the judge should not be obliged to appear in court, arguing that he would be hounded by journalists. He also objected to Lukwago’s application that the judge should take the child with him to court, saying the infant would be traumatised.
Lukwago, however, insisted that the child should be produced in the court to confirm that it is alive.
He argued that the court was not a torture chamber.
Akello dragged Sebuturo to court alleging that he forcefully took away their two-year-old son from her earlier this year.
Akello, who is seeking court to order Sebuturo to return the child to her, said the judge does not live with the child.
She also wants the court to order Sebuturo to pay for the maintenance of the boy while she looks after him.
Akello argues that as the child’s mother, she is most suitable to take care of the boy.
She said Sebuturo did not have time to attend to the child because of the nature of his job.
Akello, however, added that the judge had the financial capacity to provide for the child’s basic needs.
“The welfare of the child demands that custody be granted to the mother who is ready and willing to look after him. The child needs maternal love, care, support and guidance,†she said.
In his affidavit, Sebutuuro had contended that he had the time to look after the child.
He also noted that his other wife and children accepted the child and loved him.
Sebuturo said Akello was trying to extort money from him.
He said she once dumped the boy at his chambers in an attempt to extort money.
He argued that Akello was a young woman who was likely to get married.
The ruling will be on July 15.
Lawyers in the child custody case against Court of Appeal judge Augustine Nshimye Sebuturo clashed in the Family Court over whether the judge should appear to defend his actions.
Erias Lukwago, the lawyer for Anita Akello, the mother of the boy, had applied to the Mwanga II Court to order Justice Sebuturo to appear before the court and explain the discrepancies in his affidavit.
According to Lukwago, Sebuturo stated that he swore the affidavit before the commissioner of oaths, yet the affidavit did not bear the commissioner’s stamp.
He said the affidavit instead bore the stamp of the Court of Appeal, where the judge works.
Lukwago also argued that apart from a signature, the affidavit did not indicate the name of the commissioner.
He also wanted the judge to explain why he took the child forcefully from its mother.
Oyine Ronald Katabarwa, the lawyers for Sebuturo, however, objected, saying the judge should not be obliged to appear in court, arguing that he would be hounded by journalists. He also objected to Lukwago’s application that the judge should take the child with him to court, saying the infant would be traumatised.
Lukwago, however, insisted that the child should be produced in the court to confirm that it is alive.
He argued that the court was not a torture chamber.
Akello dragged Sebuturo to court alleging that he forcefully took away their two-year-old son from her earlier this year.
Akello, who is seeking court to order Sebuturo to return the child to her, said the judge does not live with the child.
She also wants the court to order Sebuturo to pay for the maintenance of the boy while she looks after him.
Akello argues that as the child’s mother, she is most suitable to take care of the boy.
She said Sebuturo did not have time to attend to the child because of the nature of his job.
Akello, however, added that the judge had the financial capacity to provide for the child’s basic needs.
“The welfare of the child demands that custody be granted to the mother who is ready and willing to look after him. The child needs maternal love, care, support and guidance,†she said.
In his affidavit, Sebutuuro had contended that he had the time to look after the child.
He also noted that his other wife and children accepted the child and loved him.
Sebuturo said Akello was trying to extort money from him.
He said she once dumped the boy at his chambers in an attempt to extort money.
He argued that Akello was a young woman who was likely to get married.
The ruling will be on July 15.