The High Court has refused to suspend or overturn its earlier decision sentencing Uganda Law Society (ULS) president Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde to two years in prison for contempt of court.
In her ruling, Justice Joyce Kavuma said the High Court no longer has the authority to change its own judgment. She noted that any challenge to the sentence must be made before the Court of Appeal.
“I therefore uphold the preliminary objection 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,” Justice Kavuma ruled.
Earlier this year, Justice Musa Ssekaana — now serving on the Court of Appeal — handed Ssemakadde a two-year prison term for contempt of court. The punishment stemmed from a case filed by lawyer Hashim Mugisha, who sought to block an extraordinary meeting of the ULS executive board that Ssemakadde had called.
Justice Ssekaana found that Ssemakadde had defied a court order by going ahead with the meeting and had also ridiculed both the court and the presiding judge through letters and social media posts.
At the time of sentencing, Ssemakadde was reportedly in Rwanda on official ULS duties. He has since relocated to Germany, where he is believed to have sought asylum.
Through his lawyer, Peter Walubiri, Ssemakadde later asked the court to stay the execution of the sentence, arguing that the High Court still had powers to suspend its own orders pending appeal. Walubiri also claimed that the punishment was unlawful and excessive since Ssemakadde had not been formally charged or given a chance to defend himself.
However, Justice Kavuma dismissed the application, explaining that contempt of court proceedings are different from ordinary criminal trials and do not require a formal charge sheet or plea.
“Contempts which bring the administration of justice into disrepute or interfere with the due course of justice are criminal in nature,” she said. “Such conduct amounts to criminal contempt even if committed in relation to civil proceedings.”
She further rejected Walubiri’s argument that Ssemakadde’s alleged social media posts did not constitute contempt.
“With due respect to counsel for the applicant, I disagree with that submission,” she said. “Scandalising the court is a form of contempt — an offence against the court itself, as it undermines the dignity and authority of the judiciary.”
