Mohan Kiwanuka case sparks fresh demands for judicial accountability

In a judgment that has electrified legal circles and reignited public calls for judicial transparency, the Court of Appeal last week overturned a controversial High court decision, boldly denouncing the secrecy in which it was made.

But beyond the legal technicalities, this judgment has become a symbol of a much bigger issue, judicial accountability in Uganda. The judgment, delivered on May 30, 2025, in Jordan Ssebuliba Kiwanuka v Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka (Civil Applications No. 400 of 2021 & 1010 of 2023), may go down as one of the most consequential court decisions this year, not just for the parties involved but for the entire justice system.

At the heart of the case was a petition by Jordan Kiwanuka, son of the respected entrepreneur Mohan Musisi Kiwanuka. Sebuliba sought a court order for mental evaluation of his father, alleging that the elder Kiwanuka, suffering from Alzheimer’s disease/ dementia, was no longer mentally fit to manage his personal or business affairs.

High court judge Musa Ssekaana dismissed the application in 2019, insisting the elder was of sound mind and capable. However, what was later revealed during the appeal is what shocked even seasoned lawyers.

The High court’s decision had been influenced by a 15-minute private meeting between the trial judge and the respondent, held at a hotel and completely outside the formal court record. There was no transcript. No audio. No independent witness. No accountability.

The Court of Appeal called it what it was, a breach of both procedural fairness and the constitutional duty of transparency.

In paragraph 133, page 38 of its judgment, the Court of Appeal, comprising Justices Cheborion Barishaki, Christopher Gashirabake, and Dr Asa Mugenyi, stated: “The court record is a public record and the public has a vested interest in the proper exercise of judicial power. How will judicial accountability flourish if trial judicial officers keep certain parts of the trials before them secret?

How can other stakeholders, like appellate courts, confirm that judicial power has been properly exercised if the record of proceedings is not the full account of what transpired at the trial? If this is not duly called out, there is likelihood that judicial power may be abused with impunity to the detriment of litigants.”

The appellate court found that the respondent was indeed mentally unfit to manage his business and estate due to Alzheimer’s disease since 2017. It ordered access to his medical records, an audit of transactions since 2017, and the appointment of a new estate manager through a family meeting, failing which the court would step in.

Yet it is the court’s explicit censure of its own that has drawn the most attention. The judgment couldn’t have come at a more important moment. According to the 2024 Afrobarometer survey, fewer than half (46%) of respondents said they trusted the courts “somewhat” or “a lot,” down 10 percentage points since 2017.

Even more troubling, a majority (56%) say that judges and magistrates “often” or “always” decide cases based on the influence of powerful people, rather than the law. Additionally, 56% of citizens believe that “most” or “all” judicial officers are corrupt, up 13 percentage points since 2017.

The findings suggest that public faith in judicial independence is not just declining, it is collapsing. This case reflects the kind of judicial behaviour that fuels such distrust: closed-door dealings, unexplained decisions, and an absence of transparency.

In fact, several cases over the years have quietly raised eyebrows among legal professionals and court users alike. But rarely has an appellate court been so bold in publicly calling it out. The judgment has, therefore, been widely seen as a refreshing step toward judicial introspection, a sign that even the most powerful institutions can no longer afford to operate without scrutiny.

What makes this moment unique is the fact that the criticism came from the judiciary itself. It’s one thing for civil society or the Uganda Law Society to demand accountability. It’s another when senior appellate justices openly question the conduct of a High court judge.

WARNING

At the 24th African Judicial Conference held in 2023, Senior Counsel Ruth Sebatindira, then a member of the Judicial Service Commission, delivered a timely reminder of what judicial service ought to mean: “The people entrust each and every judge with significant power over their lives and liberty. The people should and must be able to trust in the individual judges and the judiciary as an institution which wields immense power on their behalf.”

She further emphasized that Uganda’s Judiciary Transformation Agenda and improved access to justice cannot succeed without a strong foundation of judicial accountability. This recent judgment confirms that those warnings were not in vain.

The judiciary is beginning to listen, and act. The Constitution of Uganda, 1995, is clear under Article 126(1): Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people.

So it is clear this power is not absolute, it is held in trust. And with trust comes responsibility and accountability. The Court of Appeal made it clear that the trial judge’s conduct undermined the core principles of justice.

If parts of a trial happen in secret and are never documented, how can the public, or even appellate courts, confirm that justice was done? This judgment is a direct reminder that judges are not above the Constitution, and that judicial independence must be exercised within the framework of accountability.

This decision presents a golden opportunity to rebuild public confidence in the judiciary, but only if it is followed by meaningful reform. The Court of Appeal’s decision in the Kiwanuka case may have started as a family dispute over Kiwanuka’s mental state. But it ends as a compelling judicial statement: no part of justice should take place in darkness.

It is a signal to the bench, and to the country, that Uganda’s justice system must recommit to the principles that earn it public trust. This decision is not just about one judge’s error. It is a reflection of what happens when the system looks away.

Fortunately, this time, it didn’t. The judiciary has now shown that it can hold a mirror to itself. Let us hope that it keeps looking, and keeps improving.

TURNING JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY INTO ACTION

To ensure this moment is not lost, Uganda must adopt practical steps to entrench judicial accountability.

These include:

Make judicial performance records and statistics publicly accessible on the Judiciary website for public access.
Organizeregularpublicforumsorwebinarswherejudgescan respond to media and public questions about their work and ethical responsibilities.
Give the Judicial Service Commission more power and resources to monitor judges’ conduct, handle disciplinary complaints, and supervise training and inspections.
Introduce a judicial performance review tool either on the Judiciary website for the public to evaluate judicial officers on performance. This can as well be made available on ULII for lawyers to evaluate judgments/rulings by judicial officers so as to easily get feedback on poorly performing judicial officers and those with quite many erroneous and legally fatal decisions.
Hold disciplinary hearings in public when judges face serious allegations, to promote transparency and restore public confidence. This will as well act as a deterrent to others who may opt to commit similar misconduct.
Develop a clear performance tracking system for all judicial officers, including regular appraisals, peer reviews, and staff feedback, whose results/findings can always be publicly accessible or published as well in the Judiciary performance report.
Recognise best-performing judges on merit, not through political ties. It becomes a concern when the worst judges with poor decisions keep being elevated to higher courts while the best-performing ones are sidelined.
Take swift action against corruption in the courts, ensuring that dishonest judicial officers are investigated and punished openly
Support ethical and high-performing judges by recognising their work and shielding them from the negative effects of widespread misconduct.
Strengthen mechanisms for public complaints so court users at all levels can report misconduct and access redress.
Use digital tools, including social media and messaging platforms, to improve court communication and make judicial processes more open and responsive. Constant engagement with the public on platforms like Twitter can help create a way for people from whom judicial power is derived to express their concerns.
Provide basic information about court processes to the public in simple, non-legal language, so citizens understand their rights, how the Judiciary works, and how they can submit complaints.
Train judicial officers to handle cases faster by hearing them continuously to reduce case backlog and ensure justice is not delayed. As well, introduce a performance review tool to report judicial officers who drag cases without rendering timely decisions.
Ensure courts account for how they spend public funds by publishing financial reports and justifying how resources are used.
Encourage judicial officers to act in line with constitutional values, respecting the people from whom their authority is derived, and publicly punishing those that don’t as a deterrent to others.
Adjust Judiciary funding to match its growing workload, so that it can hire enough judicial officers and build proper infrastructure.
Use peer review and ethics committees to monitor judicial behaviour and reinforce professional standards across the bench. These aren’t radical suggestions. They are sensible, overdue measures to ensure that judicial independence never becomes a shield for unaccountable conduct.