By Enock Kizito
Recent judicial proceedings in Uganda have revealed a disconcerting trend: the law is being weaponized to serve political and personal vendettas rather than to uphold justice. Today I will draw your attention towards these Two cases—one involving Judge Musa Ssekaana and another concerning human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza—illustrate how the legal system can be manipulated when judicial roles become blurred.
I. When the Judge Becomes the Complainant
In a case that should have upheld the sanctity of free speech and judicial dignity, Judge Musa Ssekaana handed down a two-year prison sentence to the President of the Uganda Law Society. The offense? Allegedly referring to the judge as a “small penis judge.” On social media, stating:
“REBELS: The time for timid whispers is over. Let’s expose, combat & eradicate the malignant cancer eating up @JudiciaryUG – of which ‘small penis’ Judge Musa Ssekaana is Exhibit A. Sexual harassment allegations confirmed.”
A highly controversial matter under Miscellaneous Application No. 1243 of 2024, Judge Musa Ssekaana not only presided over the case but also acted as the complainant. The court essentially criminalized language that, in many jurisdictions, would be considered a form of political criticism or satire. “Such derogatory remarks not only impugn the dignity and authority of the judiciary, but also undermine public confidence in our legal institutions,” the court noted in its ruling.
However, the fact that Judge Ssekaana was both the adjudicator and the complainant in this case starkly undermines the natural rules of justice.
When one individual simultaneously occupies the roles of judge and complainant, the risk of bias and a conflict of interest becomes imminent. Such dual roles contravene the principles of natural justice—principles that demand an impartial tribunal to ensure fair hearings and unbiased decisions. As Justice Ssekaana’s own ruling suggests, any decision that appears self-serving not only compromises the dignity and authority of the judiciary but also erodes public trust in legal institutions.
Ugandans are constitutionally entitled to express dissent, even when it takes the form of harsh criticism against public figures. The criminalization of such speech, particularly when imposed by a judge acting in a dual capacity, poses a grave threat to freedom of expression as guaranteed under Article 29 of the 1995 Constitution.
II. Political Intimidation Through Excessive Conditions
In a separate, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION No. 118 of 2025, a human rights lawyer, Eron Kiiza, was granted bail by the High Court after spending over 80 days in Kitalya Prison. Kiiza, who had been sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment for contempt of court by the General Court Martial, now faces onerous bail conditions that many view as politically motivated.
Justice Michael Elubu ruled that Kiiza must pay a cash bond of UGX 20 million, with each of his three sureties securing a non-cash bond of UGX 50 million. Furthermore, Kiiza’s passport has been deposited with the court, restricting his travel. “I find that the applicant, Eron Kiiza, qualifies for admission on bail pending appeal,” Justice Elubu stated, emphasizing that such stringent conditions are necessary to ensure his return to court.
While the court’s ruling aims to guarantee that Kiiza remains accountable, these heavy financial obligations and travel restrictions appear excessively punitive. They serve as a stark reminder of how the legal system can be leveraged to intimidate and silence those who challenge state authority.
Kiiza’s appeal contends that his trial before a military tribunal violated his constitutional rights—a claim reinforced by a landmark Supreme Court decision barring the trial of civilians by the General Court Martial.
Both cases expose a disturbing trend: the misuse of legal processes to suppress legitimate dissent. When a judge assumes dual roles as both adjudicator and complainant, as in the Musa Ssekaana case, it fundamentally distorts the balance of justice and raises serious questions about judicial impartiality. Similarly, the punitive bail conditions imposed on Eron Kiiza risk deterring legal advocacy by creating financial and logistical hurdles for those challenging politically sensitive prosecutions.
Such actions are inconsistent with both our domestic constitutional mandates and international human rights standards, including those enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Freedom of expression and the right to a fair trial are cornerstones of any democratic society; using the law as a tool to suppress these rights is not only unjust—it is antithetical to the spirit of natural justice.
It is imperative that our judiciary recommit to the principles of impartiality and fairness. To restore public confidence and uphold the rule of law, the following measures must be taken:
- Eliminate Dual Roles: Judges must not serve as both complainant and adjudicator in the same matter. Such practices undermine the fundamental precept of impartial justice.
- Proportionality in Sanctions: Conditions imposed on bail must be fair, reasonable, and strictly necessary to ensure court attendance. Excessive financial burdens should not be used as tools for political repression.
- Safeguard Free Expression: The legal framework should clearly protect the right to criticize public officials, even in coarse or provocative language, when such criticism is aimed at exposing injustices or abuse of power.
The weaponization of the law—as exemplified by the cases involving Judge Musa Ssekaana and lawyer Eron Kiiza—poses a significant threat to justice in Uganda. The dual role assumed by Judge Ssekaana, acting as both complainant and adjudicator, directly contravenes the natural rules of justice, while the excessive bail conditions imposed on Kiiza reveal a broader pattern of judicial repression.
Upholding the constitutional guarantees of free speech and a fair trial requires urgent judicial reforms. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that the law remains a tool for justice and accountability, not an instrument of political oppression.
The writer is a Human Rights Advocate & Head of Protocol, Uganda Law Society
Related
