Politics
Uganda Law Society Accuses Judge Kania of Judicial Overreach in Besigye Bail Denial
The hallowed halls of Ugandan justice are reverberating with accusations of judicial transgression following a contentious bail ruling by Justice Rosette Comfort Kania in the highly publicized case of Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale.
The Uganda Law Society (ULS), through a forceful statement issued by Vice President Asiimwe Anthony, has vehemently condemned Justice Kania’s decision to deny bail to the two prominent figures, alleging a blatant disregard for established legal principles.
Dr. Besigye, a long-time opposition leader, and Hajji Lutale were seeking bail after fulfilling all statutory requirements. However, Justice Kania, in a move that has sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity, denied their application. Her reasoning, as articulated in the ULS statement, hinged on speculative concerns that the accused might interfere with ongoing investigations due to the gravity of the charges against them.
Adding fuel to the fire, the ULS highlighted Justice Kania’s “unacceptably paternalistic rationale” that continued detention was in the best interest of the accused, purportedly to shield them from the temptation to obstruct justice.
The ULS statement minced no words, labeling Justice Kania’s decision as “fundamentally flawed and impeachable.” Mr. Asiimwe Anthony emphasised the judge’s failure to cite any legal basis or precedent for her departure from well-established bail principles, citing landmark cases such as Uganda (DPP) v Col (Rtd) Dr Kiiza Besigye, Attorney General v Tumushabe, and Attorney General v Uganda Law Society.
“Judicial discretion is not a license for arbitrary decisions,” asserted Mr. Asiimwe. “It is a power that must be exercised within the confines of the law and established precedents.” He further referenced Supreme Court and Constitutional Court decisions in Aharikundira v Uganda, Sam Kuteesa v Attorney General, and Attorney General v Nakibuule, underscoring the principle that judicial discretion cannot be substituted with personal opinion. The ULS Vice President characterized Justice Kania’s actions as “judicial overreach,” accusing her of undermining the rule of law and the crucial principle of judicial impartiality.
The ULS statement carried a stark warning about the consequences of judicial overreach. “Judges stepping outside the law fractures the foundation upon which society stands, compromising justice and public trust,” it declared.
In a decisive move, the ULS announced its intention to invoke Executive Order RNB No 2 of 2024 and bring Justice Kania before the Judicial Service Commission to answer for her controversial ruling. Simultaneously, the ULS urged Dr. Besigye’s legal team to immediately file a fresh bail application and approach the head of the Criminal Division to seek redress.
Furthermore, the ULS called upon the Civil Division of the High Court to expedite the hearing of a stay of execution application filed by President Isaac Ssemakadde and other urgent matters, including the ULS’s own habeas corpus application for Advocate Eron Kiiza. The statement concluded with a poignant reminder: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
Meanwhile, the unfolding legal drama in the Besigye bail case has ignited a fierce debate about the limits of judicial discretion and the sanctity of established legal principles in Uganda.
The ULS’s assertive stance signals a potential showdown within the judiciary, raising critical questions about accountability and the future of justice delivery in the nation. The legal fraternity and the public alike will be keenly watching the next steps in this unfolding saga.
Comments
