High Court Blocks Uganda Law Society’s Meeting on Judicial Conduct

Summary:

• The High Court in Kampala has barred the Uganda Law Society from holding a meeting to discuss alleged misconduct by Justice Byaruhanga. The court ruled that only the Judicial Service Commission can discipline judges, not the Law Society.

---

KAMPALA, (Examiner) – The High Court in Kampala has issued an injunction halting the Uganda Law Society (ULS) from holding an extraordinary meeting aimed at discussing the alleged misconduct of Justice Jesse Rugyema Byaruhanga in a case involving individuals affected by the Tilenga oil project in Hoima District.

Judge Emmanuel Baguma, presiding over the case, emphasized that while the ULS serves as the regulatory body for lawyers, it lacks the authority to discipline a judicial officer. In his ruling on May 9, Judge Baguma prohibited the ULS from deliberating on allegations of misconduct, incompetence, bias, irregularities, and illegalities against Justice Byaruhanga.

Judge Baguma clarified that the responsibility to address complaints and discipline judicial officers lies with the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), exclusively. He deemed the ULS’s decision to convene a meeting for such purposes as unlawful and subject to judicial review.

Furthermore, Judge Baguma underscored that challenges to judicial decisions should follow established legal procedures such as appeals, revisions, or reviews, rather than informal discussions or explanations outside the judicial process.

The extraordinary meeting, initially scheduled for January 12, 2024, was deemed procedurally flawed by Judge Baguma. He noted that the ULS failed to inform the Attorney General, a member of the council and potentially affected party, about the meeting’s agenda, constituting procedural unfairness.

Isaac Atukunda, the secretary of the Law Society, argued that the ULS Act permits 15 members to requisition a general meeting with a written notice specifying its purpose. He claimed that the Attorney General, being part of the ULS members’ Council, received notification via email about the proposed meeting.

However, Judge Baguma countered this argument, stating that despite receiving an email, the Attorney General was not adequately informed of the proceedings leading to the resolution for the meeting, rendering the process procedurally flawed.

Follow @examinerug