If you had to be Jesus’- Kampala Lawyers take their stand.

Apr 05, 2007

PROCLAIMING that He was the son of God and King of the Jews, Jesus Christ acted against the Jewish law, according to the Jewish high priests. Although Pontius Pilate did not find any fault in Jesus, he still succumbed to pressure from the Jewish high priests and handed Jesus over to a charged crowd,

PROCLAIMING that He was the son of God and King of the Jews, Jesus Christ acted against the Jewish law, according to the Jewish high priests. Although Pontius Pilate did not find any fault in Jesus, he still succumbed to pressure from the Jewish high priests and handed Jesus over to a charged crowd, which was baying for his blood.

All this was during the Biblical times when Jesus was crucified. Assuming you were a lawyer and Jesus approached you at the height of his woes with the Jewish priests, would you have offered him legal services? Arthur Baguma brings you the lawyers’ opinions

Rebecca Kadaga, Speaker of Parliament

DEFENDING Jesus…. or my God. (Sighs and laughs), yes, he would be entitled to representation. I would represent him because I believe he is the son of God. I am a Christian who believes in the Bible. I would advise him not to plead guilty.

Fox Odoi, legal assistant to the President

WHAT is wrong with claiming that you are the son of God? Today it is fashionable for people to say: “I am the son of God.” And that is not criminal. I also sometimes claim to be a saint. Jesus lived at a time when legislation was rudimentary.

There were no written laws apart from the Law of Moses. I also think there was that council of elders. Today, it would be difficult to determine whether you would like to prosecute or defend him. Remember, during the cross examination, he exercised his rights to remain quiet.

Elias Lukwago, of Lukwago and Company Advocates, Kampala Central

THAT is absolutely impossible. It is quite hypothetical. In law, we call it a moot case or an imaginary case. In school, we are taught that the supreme law is the constitution.

But when we go back to religion and creation of man, the supreme law of the globe, is the law of God. The King violated that law. I would readily take up the instructions. Jesus had a case; the King of the day had assumed a supernatural position.

Geoffrey Kayanja, Kayanja and Company Advocates

DO not put me in those things of God, please. That would be going against the prophecy and God. What happened was God’s wish and it is clearly foretold in the Bible.

No one would have reversed it, even if you are the best lawyer, unless of course you are mightier than God — which is impossible.

Hon Dora Byamukama, East African Legislative Assembly

LAUGHS….that is a tough one! But I would look at what was prevailing at the time. If I would defend Jesus, it would be difficult under the Jewish laws. I would appeal to a higher being.

This is where the example of King Solomon and the two women who were claiming ownership of the same baby comes up. Solomon did not use the law, but appealed to the higher authority to give him wisdom. Jesus was healing people, the blind, leapers and the lame.

Although some people thought he was masquerading as God’s son, His acts were tangible. The higher authority would override everything and compel any lawyer to act morally basing on wisdom given by God. That is why Pontius Pilate washed his hands and said he did not see any fault in Jesus. The power of wisdom from above had prevailed on him.

Prof. Fredrick Edward Ssempebwa, Katende SSempebwa and Company Advocates

IT would be harder to defend Jesus than to prosecute him. His crime was being a rebel against the establishment of the day. At the time of Jesus, religion, culture, and politics were fused. They were not separated, so any attack on the establishment would almost tantamount to treason.

I think Jesus was committing treason. This would mean convincing people prosecuting him to separate religion, from social and political elements and see Jesus as a religious person who was simply propagating the word of God.

That would be my line of defence. In our history, we had a similar case when Kabaka Mwanga killed the martyrs. He saw them as rebels acting against the establishment of the day.

Hon Sam Njuba, Kyadondo East

I am not very religious (laughs). But as a professional, I would have acted on the instructions from Jesus. If he approached me, I would have defended him and stopped him from pleading guilty. And if he refused my advice, I would leave him.

Edwin Karugire, Kiwanuka and Karugire Advocates

I think I would prosecute Jesus because he died for us to have salvation. If I successfully defended him, we would miss out on salvation. Defending Him would mean that our sins would not be forgiven. He died on the cross for humanity.

Jotham Tumwesigye, Former Inspector General of Government

JESUS was not given a fair hearing. It was a mob trial. When Pontius Pilate asked what he had done, the mob just shouted, “Crucify him, crucify him.” If I was in the shoes of Pontius Pirate, I would have given Jesus a fair trial by compelling his accusers to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he committed crime.

And if their case was not convincing, I would not crucify him. Pilate only succumbed to the pressure from the mob.

Nester Byamugisha, Nester Byamugisha and Company Advocates

THE problem is I am not very religious, but from the little I know about crucifixion, wasn’t mob justice, a jungle practice? I would have defended my client (Jesus). Even that council of elders that condemned him, was it the final place of appeal?

Was he given a fair hearing? It looked like a one sided condemnation, especially considering the fact that he had a formidable following. That he was a false prophet! They did not have evidence to prove that.

The burden of proof lies on the accuser and not the accused. Why did the priest want Jesus to prove that he was a son of God? it was their duty to prove that he was a false prophet as they claimed. It is not for the accused to prove their innocence.

Juliet Hatanga, lawyer with FIDA

I would defend someone innocent and then put others to task to prove that he is guilty. I would call people as witnesses. Jesus performed many miracles, and he did all the miracles in the open. Even the Pharisees themselves were witnesses to his works.

None of his miracles were performed in hiding. It was always open. The burden of proof is on the person who makes an allegation.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});