the complainants told the Court to first determine their complaint issued on oath and issue criminal summons against Ssemakadde requiring him to appear and be formally charged.
Tempers flared before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court on Wednesday in a case in which Uganda Law Society-ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde is accused of insulting the modesty of a woman.
The complaint filed by lawyers Joshua Byamazima and Tony Tumukunde arose from the alleged insults hurled against the Director of Public Prosecutions Jane Frances Abodo by Ssemakadde last month while at the offices of Forum for Democratic Change -FDC Katonga Faction in Kampala.
When the matter came up before the Court presided over by Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi, the complainants told the Court to first determine their complaint issued on oath and issue criminal summons against Ssemakadde requiring him to appear and be formally charged.
However, Ssemakadde who had hired a team of 20 lawyers led by Derrick Bazekuketta and Eron Kiiza objected to their request and raised preliminary issues of law.
Bazekuketta told the Court that there was an application filed by Ssemakadde seeking dismissal of the charges on the basis that the matter is personal and that Tumukunde and Byamazima are just a couple of mischievous and cantankerous busybodies.
Ssemakadde's lawyers meant that if the vulgarized words are alleged to have been committed against the DPP, why were Tumukunde and Byamazima complaining on her behalf?
They said Abodo hasn't yet complained and that the Court therefore has no jurisdiction to entertain their matter.
Bazekuketta said that the complainants had not addressed themselves to the common law within which the courts operate and that they had not addressed themselves to Article 21 of the Constitution which talks about the right to a fair hearing.
He said Justice Steven Mubiru of the High Court has since debunked what they described as shallow thinking as to when criminal cases start. They said the criminal matters do not only start at the trial but even before the Pretrial stage and, as such, Ssemakadde's application should first be determined.
The lawyers argued that Justice Steven Mubiru gave a broader understanding of Article 28(1) talking about the fair trial which requires, a speedy trial before a competent Court and also other issues governing the criminal trial.
Bazekuketta said the determination of the complaint on oath is prejudicial to Ssemakadde and violates Article 21 of the Constitution and the broader criminal trial that involves this process as well.
He said Ssemakadde's voice should be heard and that it t would be grossly wrong for the court to close him out of the proceedings as the head of the bar and President Uganda Law Society.
They relied on several decisions by different Judges or different courts higher than the Chief Magistrates Court and argued their case that those courts have previously guided that there shouldn't be an abuse of the court process.
//Cue in: "Rero tuze mu...
Cue out: ... okulaba nga kivawo".//
//Cue in: "We are not...
Cue out: .. to see.."//
They insisted that Ssemakadde should be treated fairly, and justly in the investigations raised in the complaint on oath. According to Ssemakadde, Tumukunde and Byamazima file complaints on other people's behalf and later withdraw after realizing that they have become nuisances.
Bazekuketta cited examples that the complainants whom he kept referring to as a mischievous couple as the court audience broke in laughter have so far filed four cases against Ssemakadde, two of which he said have since been withdrawn.
This didn't go down well with Byamazima. He said Ssemakadde's lawyers were going on a fishing expedition and asked the court to restrain them. Byamazima stood up to submit as two of Ssemakadde 's lawyers also stood at the same time to tell him that he should sit down and let them first finish their submissions.
Byamazima later sparked a tense exchange when he addressed Bazekuketta as "My Learned Brother" in court. However, Bazekuketta swiftly corrected him, pointing out that the proper term is "Learned Friend," not "Brother." Undeterred, Byamazima repeated the mistake, prompting Bazekuketta to shoot back saying, "You must have been a very poor student."
Ssemakadde's lawyers said the complainants didn't even go to the police and they were just on a mission to harass their client.
The Court heard that Ssemakadde raised a fundamental breach of duty brought in the complaint on oath and nobody complained, no victim and no inquiries have been made.
It was their submission that there is no prejudice to be suffered by the complaining couple if Ssemakadde is heard.
Amidst proceedings, Ssemakadde's lawyers also asked for the referral to the High Court for it to determine whether the head of the bar can be heard, and decide on Article 28 of the Constitution.
Ssemakadde's Lawyers said they were now going deeper to argue Doctrinal Purity as opposed to scratching a mere surface of the law. This after being asked by the Magistrate whether what they were submitting was related to the issue before the Court.
Ssemakadde's lawyers noted that the complainants have also been disowned by the law firm of Byenkya and Kihika Advocates whom they had indicated in their documents as their lawyers.
In response, however, Byamazima and Tumukunde said that they had terminated instructions given to the law firm.
Byamazima said Ssemakadde would be served even when issued a criminal summons. He agreed that Ssemakadde has a right to be heard but this can well be exercised when he shows up in court. They demanded that he should be summoned to Court to protect his right to a fair hearing.
While the court was proceeding, lawyer Milton Ocen wearing a T-shirt with the words Back on Track, for Demilitarization which was Ssemakadde's campaign slogan, submitted a small paper (chit) to Bazekuketta asking him to notify the court of a application to join as a friend of the court (amicus Curiae).
He was immediately allowed to present his application after the two parties had finished their submissions.
Ocen who was given audience by the court despite wearing a T-shirt as opposed to professional clothes noted that they can't embarrass their President when they are watching. He said they had listed the ULS President as an accused and also asked that the charges be dismissed because they were intended to demean him.
Tumukunde accused Ocen of being impartial arguing that he is already biased because he represents Ssemakadde in other cases against him before the High Court Civil Division.
On November, 22, Byamazima and Tumukunde filed a complaint on oath and an affidavit in support thereof seeking summons against Ssemakadde to appear and plead to the proposed charge of insulting the modesty of a woman contrary to section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act.
The two Private Prosecutors allege that on November 18th 2024, while addressing the members of the People's Freedom Front (PFF) party at a "symposium on the state of the Rule of Law, Constitutionalism and Human Rights: The Kisumu 36 Tales" held at Katonga Road in Kampala Central, Kampala District; Ssemakadde uttered obscene and indecent words against the DPP Lady Justice Jane Frances Abodo.
"All these things like your particular Kerfuffle is then given legal dressing by this vagina from Karamoja", reads the words in contention reportedly said by Ssemakadde.
Ssemakadde added, " I have made a case before that we have a pumpkin for a DPP, but some lawyers continue to pretend that she is actually the DPP... she is dead wood."
They submitted to court a flash disk containing the video of the alleged utterances and it's on this basis that they want him summoned and prosecuted privately.
