Justice Kisaakye dodging probe into bad conduct, says AG

By instituting a court case against Chief Justice (CJ) Alfonse Owiny-Dollo and other top Judiciary officials, Justice Esther Kisaakye of the Supreme Court is trying to devise ways of avoiding an investigation into her conduct by a tribunal that is expected to be instituted by President Museveni, the Attorney General (AG) has told the Constitutional Court.

READ: Judge sues CJ, five others over Bobi 2021 poll case spat

This was contained in the AG’s defence filed on Tuesday on behalf the CJ and other top Judiciary officials in a petition filed against them by Justice Kisaakye over a week ago.

The petition is majorly about the events that unfolded early last year in the presidential election petition filed by Robert Kyagulanyi, aka Bobi Wine, against President Museveni at the Supreme Court.

“The respondents deny the contents of paragraph 47-68 of the petition. The respondents contend that the 5th respondent (Judicial Service Commission) is already carrying out an inquiry with a view to establish whether or not the petitioner (Justice Kisaakye) should be investigated by a tribunal set up by the President in accordance with the Constitution and other laws concerning her conduct as a judicial officer,” reads the AG’s defence in part. 

Others sued along with the CJ are Mr Pius Bigirimana, the Judiciary Permanent Secretary, Ms Sarah Langa Siu, the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) and Ms Apophia Tumwine, the commissioner for human resources at the Judiciary.

The JSC is investigating Justice Kisaakye over her alleged abscondment from work for about nine months, and also her alleged unethical conduct during last year’s presidential election petition.

It is alleged that on March 18 last year, Justice Kisaakye vehemently refused to share her copy of dissenting ruling with her fellow judges, which is a practice of the Supreme Court.

Further, it is alleged that Justice Kisaakye stormed out of the boardroom ahead of the reading of the ruling, prompting fellow justices to assure her that they will not go back to the courtroom unless she had circulated her dissenting decision to them.

The Judiciary statement that was released shortly after the even at the Kololo-based court, stated that Justice Kisaakye proceeded alone to the courtroom and read out her decision to a handful of lawyers and journalists.

Article 144 (3) demands that the President shall remove a judicial officer if the question of his or her removal has been referred to a tribunal appointed under clause (4) of the same aforementioned Article and the tribunal has recommended to the President that he or she ought to be removed from office.

Still Article 144 (4) states that the question whether the removal of a judicial officer should be investigated shall be referred to the President by either the JSC or the Cabinet, with advice that the President should appoint a tribunal to investigate the said judge.

ALSO READ: Drama at Supreme Court as judges clash over Bobi case

On the allegations that the permanent secretary to the Judiciary, Mr Bigirimana illegally withheld Justice Kisaakye’s salary, the AG, in his defence states: “Withholding of salary of the petitioner was premised on her absence from work without authority or permission of her supervisor.”
Chief Justice’s defence

The Chief Justice has also filed an additional defence denying allegations raised by Justice Kisaakye against him and that he has wrongly been sued.

He states that following the filing of the presidential petition last year by Bobi Wine, he constituted a panel of justices to preside over the same petition and that Justice Kisaakye was among them.

The head of the Judiciary further narrates that the petition was withdrawn halfway by Bobi Wine, but four applications had been filed, on which they had to make their decisions.

“On March 18, 2021, the date appointed for the delivery of the reasons for the rulings… all members of the panel gathered at the court boardroom and other members of the panel expressed dissatisfaction with the failure of the petitioner (Justice Kisaakye) not to circulate her draft reasons for the ruling of the court, including her dissent,” the CJ states in his defence.

He continues: “…the petitioner then appeared in the boardroom, shouted asking for her file, ignored the restraints by one senior member of the panel and stormed out. A few minutes later, as we were still discussing the conduct of the petitioner, we learnt that she was holding a press conference in the tent that was serving as the courthouse, purporting it to be the delivery of her reasons for the ruling and was blasting the Chief Justice, making wild unfounded and malicious statements.”

It is this alleged conduct of Justice Kisaakye that the CJ states in his defence prompted him to refer her to the JSC for investigation.

Counter accusation
The CJ accuses Justice Kisaakye of exhibiting crude and unethical conduct under the guise of delivering her ruling, an act he says discredited the Supreme Court.

“I have never confiscated, taken possession of, or kept any file belonging to the petitioner (Justice Kisaakye). What I have lawfully kept in my chambers to date, is a court file that was allocated to the petitioner as a member of the panel. Files allocated to the judicial officers remain property of the court,” the CJ states.

WATCH: Supreme court justice Kisakye wants Dollo in the dock

Justice Kisaakye had accused the Chief Justice of confiscating her file following the spat at the court.

Justice Kisaakye absence
On the absence of Justice Kisaakye from duty for five months, Justice Owiny-Dollo says she only presented eye drops as evidence for treating her sick eye in the United States.
He further explains that because of her long stay away from court, she was not assigned work.

“The petitioner was on unexplained and unauthorised absence from court; and only notified the CJ that she had completed her leave and had resumed duty effective June 27, 2022. I never granted her any such leave and the only leave I granted her expired at the end of June 2021. This is part of the issues pending before the JSC,” Justice Dollo says in his defence.

“Because of her absence up to end of June 2022, the petitioner could not be included in the activities of the Supreme Court since she had excluded herself from the court,” he adds.

On discrimination
On the allegations that the CJ discriminated against Justice Kisaakye when he dropped her from being the administrator of the Supreme Court following the said election petition ruling spat, he says it was necessary after her relationship with her fellow justices turned sour.

He also says he is not aware of any law that demands that it’s the most senior judge at the court to hold that position.

‘‘The court, through a democratic process, chose a new administrator,” the Chief Justice says in his defence.