High court declines to suspend Ssemakadde’s 2-year jail sentence

The High court has declined to stay or suspend its decision sentencing Uganda Law Society (ULS) president Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde to two years in prison for contempt of court.

Delivering her ruling, justice Joyce Kavuma held that the High court no longer has the jurisdiction to alter its own judgment, saying any challenge to the sentence can only be made before the Court of Appeal.

“I therefore uphold the preliminary point of law raised by counsel for the respondent that this application is incompetent, as the court is functus officio and has no further jurisdiction in the matter,” she ruled.

Earlier this year, then High court judge Musa Ssekaana, now a justice of the Court of Appeal, sentenced Ssemakadde to two years in prison for contempt. The ruling followed an application by lawyer Hashim Mugisha, who sought to block an extraordinary meeting of the ULS executive board convened by Ssemakadde.

In his decision, Ssekaana found that Ssemakadde had gone ahead to hold the meeting in defiance of a court order and had also ridiculed both the court and the presiding judge through letters and social media posts.

At the time of sentencing, Ssemakadde was reportedly in Rwanda on official ULS duties. He is now said to be living in Germany, where he is believed to have sought asylum. Through his lawyer Peter Walubiri, Ssemakadde applied for a stay of execution of the prison sentence, arguing that the High court retains the authority to suspend its own orders pending appeal.

Walubiri contended that the sentence was illegal, arbitrary, and excessive, since Ssemakadde had not been formally charged or allowed to defend himself. However, justice Kavuma dismissed the argument, clarifying that criminal contempt proceedings are distinct from ordinary criminal trials and do not require a charge sheet or plea-taking process.

“Contempts which bring the administration of justice into scorn or interfere with the due course of justice are criminal in nature,” she said. “Such conduct is regarded as criminal contempt even if committed in relation to civil proceedings.”

She further rejected Walubiri’s submission that Ssemakadde’s alleged social media posts scandalizing the court did not amount to contempt.

“With due respect to counsel for the applicant, I disagree with that line of submission,” she ruled. “Scandalizing the court is a form of contempt, an offence sui generis. It is an offence against the court rather than the state, injuring the dignity and authority of the judicial office.”