The Independent Uganda: You get the Truth we Pay the Price
Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | The President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS) Isaac Ssemakadde, has petitioned the High Court seeking to set aside the summons issued against him by Buganda Road Court Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi on charges of insulting the modesty of a woman.
The summons were issued on January 17th following a complaint by two of the ULS members lawyers Joshua Byamazima and Tony Tumukunde. They accused Ssemakadde of insulting the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Jane Frances Abodo.
Following the summons, Ssemakadde was ordered by Kayizzi to appear before him and take a plea on the charges on January 29th.
However, addressing Journalists on Thursday at the Uganda Law Society-ULS Secretariat in Kampala, Ssemakadde said that he had instructed his lawyers from GEM Advocates to file a criminal revision application in the High Court challenging the decision by Buganda Road Court to summon him.
Ssemakadde said that his lawyers have prepared 12 grounds of appeal to challenge what he described as Kayizzi’s enthusiasm.
In the grounds of the Appeal, the lawyers argue that the Chief Magistrate acted illegally and without jurisdiction by entertaining the complaint, drawing up a charge, and issuing a summons, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
They claim that the Chief Magistrate improperly failed to dismiss a denied complaint on oath by the intending private prosecutors Byamazima and Tumukunde.
Furthermore, the lawyers contend that the Chief Magistrate erred in law by declining Ssemakadde’s request to cross-examine Joshua Byamazima on his affidavit in reply. They also argue that the Chief Magistrate wrongly concluded that there was no breach of the duty of candour by the respondents.
Under the principle of duty of Candour, a claimant is under a duty to make full disclosure to the Court of material facts and known impediments to the claim.
Ssemakadde argues that Byamazima and Tumukunde had previously instituted a Civil matter against him in the Civil Division of the High Court when he expelled Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka and his representatives from the Uganda Law Society-ULS Council for interference with the independence of the Bar.
Additionally, the lawyers claim that the Chief Magistrate improperly found that Byamazima and Tumukunde met the reasonable and probable cause threshold under Section 42(3) of the Magistrates Courts Act. They also argue that the Chief Magistrate disregarded Sections 6(2)(a), 7(1), 7(2), and 7(4) of the Electronic Transactions Act in considering the Respondents’ video evidence.
Ssemakadde’s lawyers also contend that the Chief Magistrate erred in holding that a prima facie case was established against Ssemakadde under Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act. They argue that the Chief Magistrate failed to consider the context, symbolism, and constitutional protections of the words in question, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice.
Kayizzi is also faulted for secretly consulting a purported “Parish Chief/Ward Administrator” whose findings did not confirm Byamazima and Tumukunde’s complaint and improperly relied on this consultation.
The lawyers further contend that the Chief Magistrate erred in holding that the Respondent’s application was not an abuse of court process. They also argue that the Chief Magistrate improperly declined to recuse himself from the proceedings.
However, the proceedings have now been taken to the High Court, and Judge Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa will be hearing the revision case.
Ssemakadde’s lawyers are seeking several reliefs from the High Court, including an order calling for and examining the lower court record, reversing or setting aside the impugned rulings, and dismissing the complaint with costs and compensation.
Alternatively, they are seeking a stay of the intended private prosecution, arguing that it is an abuse of the court process.
But in his presentation to the media, Ssemakadde said following the summons, he has received several messages from around the world, with people expressing concern about his status and health.
He assured the public that the intended litigation would not yield any results, such as intimidating him or arresting him, as he is hopeful that his appeal in the High Court will succeed.
Ssemakadde notes that lawyer Derrick Bazekuketta from GEM Advocates is in charge of protecting his liberty as the President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS). He says he respects the legal proceedings but condemns the weaponization of the judicial system.
Meanwhile, as part of the weekly press conferences which commenced last week, the ULS invited Lawyer Robert Rutaro as the Guest.
In his remarks, Rutaro previously an arch enemy of Ssemakadde’s mode of operations, said he has reflected on their actions and realized that in fighting Ssemakadde they are not fighting him as an individual but as the Society.
Rutaro said that he didn’t support Ssemakadde’s election on September 29th 2024 even though he (Ssemakadde) had previously helped him to secure an illegal accommodation inside Makerere University when he was still a student and struggling.
He called upon the rebels against Ssemakadde to come out and stop fighting because the fighting was not useful and would not help them as the members of the bar. He said they will disarm whoever remains as a rebel.
Rutaro who has since reconciled with Ssemakadde had previously filed several cases against him but he has since withdrawn all of them.
Some of the cases include when Rutaro challenged the Executive Order in which Ssemakadde chased the Attorney General representatives from the Uganda Law Society Council.
The other case is when Rutaro instituted private proceedings against Ssemakadde in 2022 following the contempt of court decision that Justice Musa Ssekaana had delivered against Lawyer Male Mabirizi and ended up hailing him.
Ssemakadde abused the Judge on his X handle formerly Twitter in a message full of vulgarity that Rutaro found as wanting and unbecoming of an Advocate.
But Rutaro has since abandoned all these cases and advocated for unity and reconciliation among the faction that had broken away from the ULS emphasizing that the fight by Ssemakadde is not for him as an individual but for the whole Bar.
Lawyer Steven Kalali has since petitioned the Constitutional Court challenging the legality of the charge of modesty of a woman for which Ssemakadde was summoned to answer.
****
URN
