KADAGA: WHY I IGNORED COMPLAINTS & APPROVED ALL M7’S NEW 14 JUDGE

By Our Reporters

Most of the complaints raised objecting to the appointment of some of the 14 new judges recently nominated by the President were malicious and unfounded, reveals a statement Speaker Rebecca Kadaga’s office sent to Mulengera news website. The media release shows that some of the complainants were Male Mabirizi who had issues with Justices Steven Musota and Christopher Madrama. He accused them of discrimination whereby as the unrepresented litigant, they onetime prevented him submitting from the bar where advocates speak from. The two had been nominated for elevation from High Court to Court of Appeal and Mabirizi’s argument was it was improper for such guys who are so discriminatory to be deployed on the Court of Appeal which is also mandated to enforce the Constitution that in Article 21 prohibits discrimination. Ironically the other complainant was the Nabweru Grade II Magistrate called Kercan Prosper who sought to block Paul Gadenya (new High Court Judge) on grounds that he mistreated him as his supervisor by frustrating his wish to do a masters degree. Prosper says as Chief Registrar, Gadenya was mandated to oversee his work and on hearing he was doing a master’s degree, he maliciously transferred him from the Nabweru Magistrates Court to Kiboga which is very far and was prohibitive for his master’s degree training. “Mr. Kercan Prosper, a Grade II Magistrate, who complained about his administrative transfer from Nabweru Court to Kiboga. He said his transfer was malicious and intended to frustrate his pursuit of a master’s degree. JSC noted that the Magistrate had not formally informed his employer [Gadenya] that he was pursuing a course of study. The complainant was transferred due to the many complaints against him at the court that included land disputes,” the statement from Kadaga’s office reads in part.

FULL STATEMENT
Below is the full statement sent from Kadaga’s office clearly showing why Male Mabirizi’s complaint against several judicial nominees was disregarded:

VERBATTIM: Early this month, the President nominated 14 persons to be appointed to the positions of Justices of Appeal and Judges of the High Court. Of the 14 persons nominated, four Justices were for the Court of Appeal and 10 for the High Court. As required by the Constitution, the list of the nominees was forwarded to the Speaker of the Parliament of Uganda for approval. The Appointments Committee, chaired by the Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament Rebecca Kadaga, sat on Wednesday, 14th February and Thursday, 15th February 2018 to consider the nominees. Parliament, however, received complaints against five nominees, that is, Justice Stephen Musota and Justice Christopher Madrama, nominated for appointment as Justices of Appeal. The others were His Worship Paul Gadenya, His Worship Alex Ajiji and His Worship Asiimwe Tadeo, nominated for appointment as Judges of the High Court. Upon receipt of the complaints, the Office of the

Speaker set out to investigate the matter. It should be noted that the complainants stated that they had filed their grievances with the Judicial Service Commission and therefore the Appointments Committee consulted the Commission on their handling of the various matters complained of. The complainants against the judicial officers included: Mr. Kercan Prosper, a Grade II Magistrate, who complained about his administrative transfer from Nabweru Court to Kiboga. He said his transfer was malicious and intended to frustrate his pursuit of a masters degree. JSC noted that the Magistrate had not formally informed his employer that he was pursuing a course of study. The complainant was transferred due to the many complaints against him at the court that included land disputes. A one Male Mabirizi complained of being prevented from sitting at the Bar while defending himself in a matter. JSC said the complainant is not an advocate of the High Court and therefore has no right to sit at the Bar. It was also noted that Mr. Mabirizi appears to be a serial complainant against the Judiciary and other organs whenever decisions don’t go his way. Other complaints forwarded to the JSC didn’t have substance to be formally entertained. The Appointments Committee established that all the complaints filed with the Judicial Service Commission had no merit and proceeded to vet them. The report on the Committee’s interaction with the nominees will be sent to the President as required by the Rules of Procedure of Parliament.