Mao offers to reconcile Ssemakadde with Owiny-Dollo

Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister, Norbert Mao has offered to help reconcile the Uganda Law Society (ULS) with the judiciary ahead of the official retirement of chief justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo in January next year.

The bar-bench relationship is currently at its lowest point, following months of tension that culminated in ULS president Isaac Ssemakadde being barred from speaking at the opening of the New Law Year 2025 and later being forced into exile.

Owiny-Dollo cited “unapologetic conduct” by the New Radical Bar (RNB), particularly Ssemakadde, against justice Musa Ssekaana and Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Jane Frances Abodo. Owiny-Dollo warned of grave consequences, including courts denying the ULS or its officials audience unless an apology was issued.

The standoff deepened further when Ssekaana found Ssemakadde guilty of contempt of court and jailed him for two years, a ruling that saw Ssemakadde flee into self-imposed exile. In March, Interpol was ordered to arrest Ssemakadde, following a Buganda Road court directive in a case filed by private prosecutors accusing him of abusing the DPP.

The bar-bench relations further deteriorated when lawyers in the Greater Masaka region boycotted court sessions, protesting inadequate judicial staffing, with only one judge serving the region. Mao has since equated the situation to a constitutional crisis, warning that justice was being denied to thousands of innocent victims.

In response, Mao has proposed alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and has approached retired former deputy chief justice Richard Buteera to mediate the standoff. Both Buteera and Owiny-Dollo are known advocates of ADR. Owiny-Dollo has indicated he intends to champion ADR more actively once in retirement.

Mao’s efforts received a boost during a recent X (formerly Twitter) Space hosted by lawyer Ellison Karuhanga, which attracted senior lawyers and the ULS leadership. Among those calling for reconciliation was former MP Gerald Karuhanga.

“The Law Society need to identify bridge builders, and the judiciary also need to identify bridge builders. The retired deputy chief justice can be a bridge builder,” said Mao.

“I have not spoken to the Law Society president but I believe that there is no reason why he cannot return to Uganda. I can tell you. It doesn’t help the government to put Ssemakadde in jail. I would advise against it. Occasionally, we have such things,” added Mao, revealing that there are a number of judges who feel that the relationship between the bar and the bench ought to be improved.

“Now I want to tell the lawyers that I don’t think this is personal between the chief justice and the Law Society. You must know that this is not the first time that the chief justice has crossed swords with the third party,” he said. Mao said he believes that the dispute is now ripe for resolution.

“There was a time when it was not ripe for resolution. Everybody wanted to prove something. Now the chief justice is retiring in a few months. I don’t believe he wants to retire as head of the judiciary when he is at war with the bar,” said Mao.

“The lawyers are grumbling in the corridors about how the judges are being appointed, they need to be at the new Judicial Services Commission so that they can speak about the issues that they think can improve the appointment of the best possible judicial officers,” he said.

He recounted his behind-the-scenes efforts to allow Ssemakadde to speak at the Law Year event, noting that every ULS president belongs somewhere on the leadership continuum and should be accorded due recognition. Mao attributed the standoff partly to Ssemakadde’s radical tone.

“His use of what scholars call radical ruddiness, mixing obscenity and provocation in reform advocacy may not sit well with the traditionally conservative judiciary,” he noted.

Still, Mao insists his intervention aims to protect the ULS from what he calls institutional harm. He cautioned against weaponizing contempt of court laws, suggesting that such laws are meant for egregious cases, not ideological dissent.

“These laws were meant for situations like when a man tried to strangle a judge, not to settle political or professional differences,” Mao said.

He also observed that some of the grievances raised by Ssemakadde had been echoed by other senior lawyers, including senior counsel John Mary Mugisha, during the 25th Annual Judges’ Conference in February 2024.

The documented concerns included disrespect of court orders, case backlogs and delayed judgments, state interference in judicial decisions, disposal of cases taking over five years.

“Our main concern is case delays. We can’t advise clients properly because we don’t know when trials will begin or end,” Mugisha stated. Mao remains hopeful that a peaceful resolution is within reach if all sides put national interest above ego or rivalry.

“Justice Owiny-Dollo described this as a friendly fire. But even friendly bullets can kill. That’s why dialogue is urgent,” Mao emphasized.

Related