In a landmark ruling, the High Court has sentenced Isaac Ssemakadde, President of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), to two years' imprisonment for contempt of court following derogatory remarks made about Justice Musa Ssekaana on social media.
The legal confrontation between Ssemakadde and Justice Ssekaana has been escalating over recent months.
In December 2024, under Ssemakadde's leadership, the ULS issued an executive order directing its members to boycott Justice Ssekaana for one month, citing 18 instances of alleged judicial misconduct. The allegations included abuse of power, bias, failure to adhere to the law, conflicts of interest, and harassment of court users.
The ULS also revoked the "Excellence from the Bench" award previously conferred upon Justice Ssekaana in 2021.
Following these actions, Ssemakadde took to social media to express his criticisms of Justice Ssekaana, using language that the court found to be derogatory and disrespectful.
Justice Ssekaana subsequently filed a contempt of court application against Ssemakadde, arguing that his remarks undermined the authority and integrity of the judiciary.
In its ruling, the High Court found Ssemakadde guilty of contempt, stating that his comments were not only an affront to Justice Ssekaana but also to the judiciary as a whole.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining respect for judicial officers and the institution they represent.
As a result, Ssemakadde was sentenced to two years in prison.
The ruling has sent shockwaves through Uganda's legal community. Supporters of Ssemakadde argue that the sentence is excessive and poses a threat to freedom of expression, especially concerning the critique of public officials.
They contend that his remarks were within his rights to free speech and were aimed at holding the judiciary accountable.
On the other hand, proponents of the ruling assert that it serves as a necessary measure to uphold the dignity of the judiciary. They argue that while constructive criticism is essential, it must be delivered respectfully and within the bounds of the law.
This case highlights the delicate balance between freedom of expression and the need to maintain respect for judicial institutions. It raises important questions about the limits of criticism, especially when directed at the judiciary, and the potential consequences of crossing those boundaries.
As Ssemakadde prepares to serve his sentence, the legal community and the public at large will be closely monitoring the implications of this ruling on the relationship between legal practitioners and the judiciary, as well as its impact on freedom of expression in Uganda.
