The High Court of Uganda has ordered the arrest and imprisonment of Uganda Law Society President, Isaac Kimezze Ssemakadde for two years after finding him guilty of contempt of court.
The ruling, delivered by Hon. Justice Musa Ssekaana, cited repeated and derogatory social media attacks against the judge and the judiciary, which were deemed to have “scandalized the court” and “undermined judicial authority.”
“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 ‘foot soldiers’ and respondents in the main cause to desist from such conduct in future,” Ssekaana ruled.
“The respondent should be arrested and imprisoned for a period of two (2) years. The costs shall be in the cause,” the judge emphasised.
The contempt proceedings stemmed from an ongoing legal dispute involving Mugisha Hashim Mugisha, who had filed multiple applications before the court.
Following a ruling in Miscellaneous Application No. 1243 of 2024, which was unfavorable to Ssemakadde and other respondents, the lawyer took to social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to launch a sustained attack against Justice Ssekaana.
Ssemakadde, who is known for his outspoken views and leadership of the Radical New Bar, made numerous posts accusing Justice Ssekaana of having “unholy alliances” and acting in a biased manner.
He spearheaded a hashtag campaign #SsekaanaMustGo and made inflammatory statements, including branding the judge as “small penis” and alleging sexual harassment.
Additionally, he urged the public to document and expose alleged judicial misconduct.
The attacks were viewed as an “attempt to intimidate the court,” sway public opinion against its rulings, and ultimately “undermine judicial independence,” according to the judge.
Ssemakadde is yet to issue a response to the ruling delivered this Friday, February 14, 2025.
In his ruling, Justice Ssekaana emphasized the broader implications of such attacks, stating:
“Proceedings for contempt serve a valuable function here in preventing the manipulation of public opinion in relation to the judiciary and the administration of justice by persons like the respondent – motivated persons or cynically-minded members of the public or social influencers like the respondent who are always on social media to get likes and comments or make content. The respondent has made several tweets on social media and reckless letters targeting the judicial system, and this has a direct effect of obstruction of justice by scandalizing judicial officers.”
Violence
The judge further warned that “violence, intimidation and defiance directed at judicial officers because of their work undermine the country’s democracy and rule of law and are wholly unacceptable.”
Given the severity of Ssemakadde’s statements, the judge ruled that “courts ought to deter future attacks on the judiciary by early preventive action,” adding, “Our courts have stressed the deterrent element in contempt proceedings for scandalizing.”
Ssekaana emphasised: “A poisonous flow, unhindered, may eventually destroy completely the stream of justice. The respondent’s tweets are intended to destroy the judicial system with systematic attacks on every judicial officer who handles any of the matters in which he is interested.”
While affirming the right to critique judicial decisions, Justice Ssekaana noted that criticism should not extend to personal attacks on judicial officers:
“The respondent, like any other citizen, has a right to criticize the work of the judiciary, but they should be mindful that the intemperance in their statements or personal attacks when it comes to judicial officers may prompt dangerous reactions by others. The respondent must draw a distinction between criticism of court decisions (which is healthy, warranted, and welcome) from personal attacks addressed to judicial officers as a result of their work,” said the judge.
The ruling further addressed the growing trend of social media attacks on judicial officers:
“The threat to judicial independence, through personal attacks on judicial officers and peddling of disinformation and false information about judicial officers and decisions of court amplified by social media, must be checked. Threatening statements like what the respondent tweeted are extremely inappropriate and they are dangerous to the rule of law and ought to be punished.”
The judge also cautioned against a ripple effect of such attacks, noting that:
“The statements of the respondent have emboldened other members of the public who are now extending threats of sharing judicial officers’ telephone contacts and/or residential addresses, which poses a security risk.”
Buvuma Islanders Rejoice Over High UCE Grades at Nairambi Seed School
Justice Ssekaana concluded that Ssemakadde’s actions were a “scurrilous attack” on the judiciary, stating:
“In the present case, the respondent, Ssemakadde Isaac Kimezze, has clearly scandalized the court by his utterances, statements (tweets), and letters—a scurrilous attack on the presiding judge to show his frustration and disgust at the decision in Miscellaneous Application No. 1243 of 2024, which was unfavorable to him and other respondents in that matter. This was clearly an affront to the impartiality of the judge and to the judiciary as an institution. Such serious and deliberate attacks clearly undermine the dignity and authority of this court, which cannot, and must not, be condoned.”
Ssemakadde’s fiery attacks on judicial officials have attracted mixed reactions with some expressing disgust and others cheering him on for ‘taking the bull by the horns.’
Ssemakadde’s legal team has yet to announce their next course of action, though an appeal or habeas corpus application remains an option.
As the legal fraternity grapples with the implications of this ruling, the case underscores the delicate balance between “freedom of expression” and “judicial authority,” particularly in the digital age where social media plays a significant role in public discourse.
List of 21 Teachers Summoned by Education Service Commission Over Forgery