How ULS President’s right to a fair hearing was violated

By Denis Kusaasira

The recent sentencing of Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde to two years in prison for alleged contempt of court has sent shockwaves through Uganda’s legal fraternity. More than just punishment, this ruling raises serious constitutional and procedural concerns that strike at the heart of judicial impartiality and the right to a fair hearing.

At the centre of the controversy is High Court Judge Musa Ssekaana, who not only became the subject of Ssemakadde’s alleged contemptuous remarks but also presided over the very case in which those remarks were adjudicated. This troubling sequence of events undermines fundamental principles of justice and fairness enshrined in the Ugandan Constitution.

Was Justice Served?

Article 28(1) of the Constitution guarantees every individual the right to a fair, speedy, and public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. This right is further reinforced by Article 44(c), which declares it non-derogable, meaning no circumstance can justify its infringement.

The Constitution (Recusal of Judicial Officers) (Practice) Directions, 2019, provide clear guidelines to operationalize these guarantees. These guidelines explicitly require a judge to step aside from a case where their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Rule 6(1) of the 2019 Directions states that a judge must recuse themselves when there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias a standard based not on the judge’s own perception but on that of a neutral, objective observer.

In this case, the principle of nemo judex in causa sua no one should be a judge in their own cause was clearly violated. When a judge is directly involved in a controversy, as was the case with Judge Ssekaana, it becomes nearly impossible to maintain even the perception of impartiality. Regardless of actual bias, the mere appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to erode public confidence in the judiciary.

A Dangerous Precedent

Judicial impartiality is not just a procedural requirement; it is a cornerstone of public trust in the legal system. When the courts appear to disregard established legal principles, it raises serious concerns about whether justice is truly being served—or if the law is being selectively applied.

Beyond Ssemakadde’s individual case, the broader concern is the dangerous precedent this ruling sets. If a judge can both claim to be a victim and also sit in judgment over the accused, where does that leave the independence of the judiciary? Can citizens still have faith that they will receive a fair trial, free from personal biases and conflicts of interest?

The Path Forward

A more judicious approach would have been for Judge Ssekaana to recuse himself and allow another judge to preside over the matter. Such an action would have reinforced the judiciary’s commitment to fairness, upheld constitutional safeguards, and preserved the integrity of the proceedings.

The judiciary must take deliberate steps to reinforce the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the 2019 Recusal Directions. Recusal should not be seen as a sign of weakness but as a strength—a demonstration that the courts remain committed to justice, impartiality, and the rule of law.

The right to a fair hearing is not a procedural technicality; it is the very foundation of justice. If Uganda’s judiciary fails to uphold this principle, it risks not just undermining individual cases but also eroding public confidence in the entire legal system. Upholding the rule of law must remain paramount, regardless of personalities or circumstances.

Denis Kusaasira is a Senior Partner at ABMAK Associates