In Summary: Uganda Law Society President Isaac Ssemakadde has welcomed a November 4 Constitutional Court judgment that declared parts of the law governing private prosecutions unconstitutional and found defects in the Penal Code offence of insulting a woman’s modesty. The decision affects one of the two major criminal and contempt proceedings that have kept him outside Uganda since 2025.
Kampala, Uganda — Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde has revealed that he is a step closer to returning home after the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment that could significantly affect the private prosecution case which resulted in an international arrest warrant against him.
In a statement issued on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, Ssemakadde described the decision as his second major legal vindication this year, saying the court had nullified the framework for private prosecutions under Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act and one of the offences linked to an international arrest warrant issued against him.
“I have been vindicated by the Constitutional Court for the second time this year,” Ssemakadde said, calling on the Judiciary to hear his appeal against a separate contempt-of-court conviction, which carries a two-year prison sentence.
“The other offence keeping me in exile is ‘contempt of court by insulting judges.’ I urge the Judiciary to stop shying away from hearing my appeal against that travesty as well, so that we may restore constitutional balance to political discourse in our lifetime,” he noted.
Ssemakadde’s statement followed a judgment delivered by a five-member Constitutional Court panel led by Justice Cheborion Barishaki in Kalali Steven and Others v Attorney General, Consolidated Constitutional Petitions No. 3 and 8 of 2025, on November 4.
The court, according to the ruling, considered constitutional challenges to provisions of the Penal Code Act dealing with indecent assault and insulting the modesty of a woman, as well as Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act, which provided for private criminal prosecutions.
The ruling has direct relevance to one of the cases against Ssemakadde, who has been living outside Uganda since February 2025, following a series of court proceedings involving allegations of insulting the modesty of the then Director of Public Prosecutions, Jane Frances Abodo, and a separate contempt-of-court conviction arising from his public criticism of judicial officers.
However, the latest judgment does not, by itself, dispose of all the legal proceedings against him.
What the Constitutional Court decided
In the November 4 judgment, the Constitutional Court considered whether provisions of the Penal Code Act discriminated against men by restricting protection against indecent assault and acts insulting modesty to women and girls.
The petitioners, lawyers Steven Kalali, Martins Kirya and Michael Aboneka, challenged Sections 115(1) and 115(3) of the Penal Code Act, arguing that the provisions were inconsistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.
The court agreed that the law could not offer protection to one gender while excluding another from protection against similar harm.
In the lead judgment, Justice Barishaki stated: “The undisputed evidence, including the Respondent’s own concession, is that men are equally capable of suffering the harm addressed by section 115(1) and (3) of the Penal Code Act.”
“There is no rational, let alone constitutionally sufficient, basis for the Legislature to protect one gender from this form of injury while withholding equivalent protection from the other,” the judge added.
The court consequently directed that the words “any woman or girl” in the relevant provisions be read as “any person”, extending the protection to all people regardless of gender.
The justices also considered the wording of Section 115(3), which criminalises acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman through words, sounds, gestures or objects.
Justice Barishaki found that the provision failed to define clearly what amounted to an insult to modesty, raising concerns about legal certainty and the possibility of arbitrary prosecution.
“I equally find merit in the petitioners’ legality challenge under Article 28(12) of the Constitution. The terms ‘any word’, ‘any sound’, ‘any gesture’ and ‘any object’ in Section 115(3), unaccompanied by any definition of what constitutes an insult to modesty, are constitutionally insufficient as the basis of a criminal offence,” the judge ruled.
However, the court did not simply abolish all the protections under Section 115. It considered that women and girls still required legal protection and directed the Attorney General to introduce legislation within 12 months to amend the provision, extend protection to all persons and clearly define the prohibited conduct.
The other major aspect of the judgment concerned private prosecutions under Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act. The court found constitutional problems with a procedure that allowed a magistrate to receive a private complaint, conduct preliminary consultations, assess whether a case existed, prepare a charge sheet and subsequently preside over the trial.
The justices held in unison that combining these functions in the same judicial officer undermined the independence and impartiality required for a fair hearing.
The judgment therefore declared the relevant parts of Section 42 unconstitutional to the extent that they permitted the same magistrate to undertake preliminary screening and charge preparation before trying the matter.
The court did not abolish private prosecutions altogether. Instead, it provided for a procedure that separates preliminary assessment, preparation of charges and adjudication, while directing the Attorney General to introduce amendments within 12 months.
This distinction is important to Ssemakadde’s case because the November 4 judgment affects the legal framework under which private prosecutors initiated proceedings against him. The precise consequences for the existing criminal case and the international warrant require formal directions from the relevant court.
How the case over remarks against Jane Frances Abodo began
The first set of proceedings arose from remarks Ssemakadde allegedly made about Jane Frances Abodo, who was then serving as Director of Public Prosecutions and is now the Principal Judge. The alleged remarks were made on November 18, 2024, during an event organised by the People’s Front for Freedom at its Katonga offices in Kampala.
The event was reportedly a symposium on the state of the rule of law, constitutionalism and human rights.
Private prosecutors Joshua Byamazima and Tonny Tumukunde subsequently filed a complaint on oath on November 22, 2024, accusing Ssemakadde of insulting the modesty of a woman, contrary to Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act.
According to the complaint and charge-related reports, Ssemakadde allegedly referred to Abodo as “a vagina from Karamoja”, “dead wood”, “a dimwit” and “a shameless careerist”. The statements were allegedly made while discussing Abodo’s appointment to replace former DPP Mike Chibita.
The private prosecutors reportedly submitted a video recording of the speech as part of their complaint. The allegations were, however, not a conviction, but they formed the basis of a private prosecution before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court.
On February 17, 2025, charges were sanctioned against Ssemakadde, and the court subsequently issued criminal summons requiring him to appear and answer them, and on February 24, then Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi, issued an arrest warrant after Ssemakadde failed to appear in court.
The magistrate noted that the accused had been served with summons and that a pending application seeking to halt proceedings did not, by itself, amount to an order staying the case.
On March 19, 2025, the court issued an international arrest warrant, directing that it be served through Interpol.
Chief Magistrate Kayizzi said the warrant was necessary because Ssemakadde had failed to attend court despite earlier summons and an arrest warrant. The prosecution informed court that he was outside Uganda and that relevant documents had been served on his lawyers and through other channels.
High Court temporarily halts private prosecution
Ssemakadde challenged the proceedings before the High Court, questioning the legality and regularity of the private prosecution.
He argued that the complaint and supporting affidavit did not disclose reasonable and probable cause for the proposed charge and that the alleged offence was victim-centred, requiring evidence from the person said to have been affected.
He also questioned the manner in which the complaint had been processed. And on April 11, 2025, Justice Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa of the High Court Criminal Division granted him temporary relief, halting proceedings in the Buganda Road case pending determination of his revision application.
In his ruling, the judge stated: “In the interest of justice, I find it justifiable to grant a stay to safeguard the applicant’s right to liberty while the revision is underway.”
The court directed Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court to stay proceedings in Uganda (Private Prosecution by Byamazima Joshua and Tonny Tumukunde) v Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde, Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024, pending determination of Criminal Revision Case No. 002 of 2025.
The order was significant because it suspended proceedings in the case connected to the international arrest warrant. However, it did not resolve the separate contempt conviction against him.
The separate case that led to his departure
The second legal battle, and the one that remains particularly important to his possible return, arose from an internal dispute within the Uganda Law Society following his election as president in September 2024.
Ssemakadde was elected ULS president on September 28, 2024. After assuming office, he issued Executive Order RNB No. 1 of 2024 on October 14, making changes to the composition of the society’s council.
The changes triggered disagreements within the legal body.
On November 23, 2024, the then Honorary Secretary reportedly issued an order expelling Ssemakadde and the ULS Vice President. The following day, Ssemakadde convened an online council meeting at which the Honorary Secretary and Central Representative were suspended.
An acting Honorary Secretary was appointed and, on November 25, a notice was issued calling an Extraordinary General Meeting scheduled for December 17, 2024.
The meeting was intended, among other things, to address the positions of the Honorary Secretary and Central Representative and elect ULS nominees to the Judicial Service Commission.
ULS member Mugisha Hashim Mugisha challenged the legality of some of the decisions and sought court orders to stop the planned meeting. And on December 13, 2024, the High Court issued temporary injunctions halting the Extraordinary General Meeting.
The dispute later escalated into contempt proceedings after Mugisha accused Ssemakadde of continuing to act in defiance of court orders through public statements, social media posts and letters criticising the Judiciary and the decisions made in the ULS dispute.
On February 14, 2025, Justice Musa Ssekaana of the High Court Civil Division found Ssemakadde guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to two years in prison.
The judge said the repeated nature of the remarks warranted a strong warning, particularly because Ssemakadde was a senior lawyer and the elected leader of the legal profession.
“The repeated nature of the attacks by a person knowledgeable in legal matters and duly elected as president of Uganda Law Society invites this court to send a strong warning and caution against future contemnors,” Justice Ssekaana ruled.
The judge also emphasised that although citizens have a right to criticise the Judiciary, personal attacks and misinformation directed at judicial officers could undermine the administration of justice.
The ruling was delivered in Ssemakadde’s absence, with the court ordering his arrest and imprisonment.
Ssemakadde was already outside Uganda at the time. His continued absence meant the arrest and committal orders were not immediately executed.
Why the two-year sentence remains a separate obstacle
Following the contempt conviction, Ssemakadde pursued an appeal and also sought to suspend execution of the sentence pending its determination.
In October 2025, however, Justice Joyce Kavuma dismissed his application to stay the two-year prison term.
In Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde v Mugisha Hashim Mugisha, Miscellaneous Application No. 137 of 2025, the judge held that the High Court could not use the application to suspend a sentence imposed for criminal contempt after it had already delivered its decision.
Justice Kavuma ruled that the court was functus officio, meaning it had completed its judicial task in the matter and could not reopen or alter the decision through that application. “I therefore uphold the preliminary point of law raised by counsel for the respondent that this application is incompetent, as the court is functus officio and has no further jurisdiction in the matter,” she ruled.
The judge explained that the appropriate avenue for challenging the sentence was an appeal before the Court of Appeal.
The ruling did not determine the merits of Ssemakadde’s appeal against the original contempt conviction. It dealt with whether the High Court could suspend execution of the sentence through the application before it.
This distinction is central to the latest development. While the November 4 Constitutional Court judgment affects the legal framework underpinning the private prosecution over the alleged remarks against Abodo, it does not automatically set aside the separate two-year contempt sentence.ULII+3
A second constitutional victory in 2026
The November 4 judgment is not the first Constitutional Court decision this year that Ssemakadde celebrated as a victory for freedom of expression.
On March 17, 2026, the Constitutional Court delivered judgment in Alternative Digitalk Limited and Others v Attorney General, Consolidated Constitutional Petitions Nos. 34, 37 and 42 of 2022.
The court found that Parliament had failed to establish the required quorum when passing the Computer Misuse (Amendment) Act, 2022, rendering the legislation null. It also declared Sections 162 and 163 of the Penal Code Act, which dealt with criminal libel, unconstitutional.
The judgment addressed the constitutionality of criminalising certain forms of expression and the parliamentary procedure used to enact the Computer Misuse Amendment Act.
In his November 4 statement, Ssemakadde described the March decision as the first of his two constitutional victories this year, saying the court had ruled that Uganda was treaty-bound to repeal laws criminalising sedition, insult and publication of false news.
What happens next?
The November 4 ruling has given Ssemakadde grounds to argue that the private prosecution against him was founded on legal provisions and procedures that have since been found constitutionally defective.
However, the practical effect on the pending criminal proceedings and the international warrant will depend on how the relevant courts implement the Constitutional Court’s decision.
The separate contempt-of-court conviction remains a different matter. Ssemakadde says he wants the Judiciary to hear his appeal against that decision, which he describes as a travesty.
In his statement, he also thanked his lawyers, Steven Kalali, Paul Mukiibi and Caleb Alaka, for pursuing the constitutional matter. “I am one step closer to returning home to complete what we started. Blessings,” he said.
The Radical Ssemakadde also declared that he would not retreat from his campaign against what he described as censorship, authoritarianism and present-day colonialism.
Key events in the Ssemakadde cases
| Date | Development |
|---|---|
| September 28, 2024 | Ssemakadde elected ULS president. |
| October 14, 2024 | Issues Executive Order RNB No. 1 of 2024, restructuring the ULS Council. |
| November 18, 2024 | Alleged remarks about then DPP Jane Frances Abodo made at a PFF event in Katonga. |
| November 22, 2024 | Private prosecutors Byamazima and Tumukunde file a complaint over the alleged remarks. |
| December 13, 2024 | High Court issues temporary orders stopping the planned ULS Extraordinary General Meeting. |
| February 14, 2025 | Justice Musa Ssekaana sentences Ssemakadde to two years in prison for contempt of court. |
| February 24, 2025 | Buganda Road Court issues an arrest warrant in the private prosecution case. |
| March 19, 2025 | Court issues an international arrest warrant through Interpol. |
| April 11, 2025 | High Court temporarily halts the private prosecution pending a revision application. |
| October 16, 2025 | Justice Joyce Kavuma dismisses Ssemakadde’s application to suspend the contempt sentence, directing him to pursue the appeal route. |
| March 17, 2026 | Constitutional Court nullifies the Computer Misuse Amendment Act and declares criminal libel provisions unconstitutional. |
| November 4, 2026 | Constitutional Court rules on Sections 115(1) and (3) of the Penal Code Act and Section 42 of the Magistrates Courts Act. |
If you would like your article/opinion to be published on Uganda’s most authoritative news platform, send your submission on: [email protected]. You can also follow DailyExpress on WhatsApp and on Twitter (X) for realtime updates.
