By Mulengera Reporters
To his credit, Justice Minister Norbert Mao has vowed to prioritize mediation and reconciliation to deescalate tensions between Isaac Ssemakadde-led Uganda Law Society on one hand and the Alfonse Owiny Dollo-led Judiciary bosses on the other. Ssemakadde has reciprocated this by stating he is open to making a deal so that de-escalation can be achieved. Mao says it will be shameful for the judiciary, which has been popularizing and sending judges to US-based Pepperdine University for training in mediation and ADR, to fail to amicably resolve tensions between the bench and the bar.
But Ssemakadde says he would only be prepared to engage in negotiations if his right to continue criticizing corruption and deliberate inefficiency in the judiciary is respected. That he isn’t ready to be required to lose his right to criticize, insult and annoy members of the bench who are floppy and indolent in the way they go about official work.
Ssemakadde spoke during a social media conversation on Saturday which lasted from 6am to past 1pm. It was hosted and moderated by activist Shallon Kihembo. He said his right to harshly criticize, insult and annoy judges who engage in anomalous conduct was part of his Article 29-bestowed free speech which is non-negotiable.
SR LAWYER GIVES CONTEXT: In an interview with Mulengera News, eminent Kampala lawyer and veteran Makerere law school lecturer Peter Mukidi Walubiri welcomed the Mao proposal and Ssemakadde’s willingness to embrace the same. Walubiri went on to explain and clarify on the steps which would have to be followed for Mao’s efforts to bear fruit.
“In any negotiations, parties must be prepared to give and take. Ssemakadde would be expected to change and engage more without losing his freedom of expression. On their part, the judiciary leaders have to see this as an opportunity to become more efficient. They also have to admit existence of corruption, delayed delivery of judicial decisions, concerns relating to the process through which judicial officers are recruited, operational inefficiencies and all the other things Ssemakadde has been very outspoken against.”
Walubiri advised that this reconciliation process should be broadened to comprehensively address many of the justice delivery-related grievances (including need for more transparency in the recruitment of judicial officers) which Ssemakadde has been very outspoken about because these are grievances many advocates share except that they aren’t as courageous as Ssemakadde to publicly pronounce themselves. “He is actually speaking for many lawyers and court users. These shouldn’t be treated as personal grievances warranting reconciliation between judiciary leaders and Ssemakadde but an opportunity to undertake to move and resolve many of these things because they are real. It’s an opportunity to clean up on all those. It won’t be easy but there should be a commitment on part of the judiciary leadership to move on many of these grievances.”
He added: “The lawyers had reservations and may be wouldn’t have supported Ssemakadde because of his well-known name and shame approach but they gave him the vote inspite of his shortcomings as an individual simply because he was speaking their mind on many things. These are institutional weaknesses which they should commit to tackle because it’s the one causing all these attacks by Ssemakadde and others.”
Walubiri also agreed with Ssemakadde’s demand that such mediation and reconciliation process shouldn’t be used to prevent him (in future) from exercising his free speech of criticizing the leadership where things aren’t going well. “Yes there are constitutional provisions on free speech but when you are exercising it, you have to be cautious on what to say and how to say it.” Walubiri referred to the case of Onyango Obbo and Andrew Mwenda where the Supreme Court of Uganda defended the right of citizens to render criticism including that which can be very annoying sometimes.
“In that Onyango Obbo decision, the justices allowed that hard truths have to be said and the question is how do you say them? If somebody says you are corrupt and you aren’t, you feel insulted and get hurt. What you do under the law is that you go to court and sue for defamation. If you fail to substantiate your claims, you are compelled to pay substantial damages and then that person won’t repeat it again. There are remedies in the law on how to deal with the person who abuses his free speech freedoms and goes beyond. You sue him in civil courts for defamation as opposed to using police.”
Walubiri explained that the best way to tame and manage harsh critics like Isaac Ssemakadde is for the judiciary leadership to become more deliberate about addressing institutional weaknesses which cause a lot of people and lawyers to support what Ssemakadde is saying-and that in case that doesn’t work, the offended individuals should be able to seek protection under the same laws of Uganda by suing him under civil defamation.
Even when that is the case, Walubiri advises that Ssemakadde should reflect on his past utterances and how he has been saying things while preparing to give concessions on certain things as he prepares to engage in reconciliation negotiations with his tormentors on the other hand.
THE STEPS TO HAPPEN:
We also asked Counsel Walubiri to clarify on the practical steps and what exactly has to happen for meaningful reconciliation and the mending of fences to happen given that Ssemakadde has already been convicted in more than one instances.
“In matters like that, all options are on the table and this isn’t unprecedented. Isaac Ssemakadde has appealed against all the rulings and orders against him. One way to achieve reconciliation is for the other party [the state of Uganda in this case] not to oppose the appeal so that the appellant succeeds and he is free. Yes, the DPP is involved but she is acting for a complainant [who is the state]. The DPP is a lawyer acting on instructions like any other counsel except that she is a public lawyer. She simply gets instructed by the complainant not to escalate her opposition to the appeal as parties engage in talks.”
Walubiri says once that happens, the reconciliation and mediation which Minister Mao is pursuing becomes effective and that brings tensions and all the antagonism (relating to the Ssemakadde convictions and sentencing) to an end. “Everybody, including the Attorney General, may have to get involved beyond just the DPP because, from what I have heard him say, Isaac Ssemakadde seems to think there is a conspiracy against him involving the AG, the DPP and some elements in the judiciary.” Walubiri says this won’t be the first time a dispute of that nature would have been deescalated through mediation in the Ugandan judicial system. He makes reference to the Mathew Kanyamunyu criminal case relating to the murder of Akena being one of the latest such cases.
“Even when he is the President of Uganda Law Society, Ssemakadde is a litigant or convict like any other before court. Nothing becomes more complicated simply because of the position he occupies once parties have agreed on the mediation route. It would be a good thing to use ADR to resolve the dispute because the judiciary has also been talking about the system being too burdened because there are many cases to resolve. And the good thing is that these days ADR is applicable not only in lower courts but even in upper courts and as a lawyer, I have recently resolved even bigger cases through ADR at the level of Court of Appeal.” (For comments on this story, get back to us on 0705579994 [WhatsApp line], 0779411734 & 041 4674611 or email us at mulengeranews@gmail.com).
