A call for sobriety in the law courts

An alarming situation is unfolding in the law courts where we see a rise in rulings that appear not to be informed by the facts, but by political considerations.
 The latest of such rulings has resulted in a call for a boycott by lawyers of the new law year opening ceremonies. Those behind that call are well within their rights to stage a peaceful protest.  

 A judge apparently was persuaded to hand down an injunction stopping the Uganda Law Society (ULS) from convening to reflect over a presidential directive to the Chief Justice. The directive -- asking His Lordship Alphonse Chigamoi Owiny-Dollo to personally intervene in a matter between Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) and a private citizen -- has rightly been deemed to be an intolerable interference with the constitutional independence of the Judiciary. 

 Article 128 of Uganda’s Constitution is clear; stating that: In the exercise of judicial power, the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority… A person exercising judicial power shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by that person in the exercise of judicial power.

 From the foregoing, the unavoidable inference would be that when in his instructions to the Chief Justice the President appeared to target the judge who had ruled against the UMSC, Article 128 was contravened. 
 An extraordinary ULS meeting presented a gilt-edged opportunity to address this serious issue which presents an existential threat to both the rule and practice of law in this country. 

We presume this was going to be a peaceful gathering of learned friends. There was no indication that any law or regulation had been offended in the petition for a meeting. How a judge would then conclude that such a meeting would result in the passing of “illegal resolutions”, is befuddling.

 Next to democratically inclined people, lawyers are supposed to be the most open-minded members of society, always willing to allow diverse points of view to contend. That latitude is now threatened by the rise of something called ‘cadre judges’. Cadre judges are known to make findings that protect vested interests – which is quite scandalous given how important the neutrality of the law is for good order in society. In this case, the suspicion is that the President could have been embarrassed by a ULS resolution reminding him of the constitutional prerogatives on judicial independence, hence the injunction stopping the meeting.

 What all this suggests is that the Judiciary is at a delicate pass; elements at the Bar and on the Bench are at cross purposes. Is it not time for sober minds to prevail over these vexed matters before us?