Grave Concerns on Government’s Steady Islamization of Uganda

 

BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

MOBILE: +256753124713 & +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Monday, 13^th April, 2026.

To:

1.                 HE the President of the Republic of Uganda,

Office of the President, KAMPALA.

2.                 Members of Parliament,

Through: The Right Honourable Speaker of Parliament,

Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, KAMPALA.

Dear Fellow Citizens,

Re: Grave Concerns on Government’s Steady Islamization of Our Country

“You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time,” Abraham Lincoln.

The letter was duly served upon the President and Members of Parliament, through the Speaker, as seen from the stamps duly acknowledging receipt of it.

I write to you as your fellow Ugandan. It is said that you cannot heal something unless you are brave enough to say it out loud. On that note, let me say out aloud a potentially dangerous trend in Uganda i.e. the government’s steady Islamization of our country. Uganda is home to people of various religions: Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Traditionalists, among others – even atheists. The country is a secular state and in fact article 7 of our Constitution prohibits adoption of a state religion. Yet Government of Uganda is slowly but surely making our country an Islamic state through increasing imposition of Moslem-centered laws and policies, due to a combination of many factors such as political populism, Islamic pressure and utter official naivety!

It is alarming and quite unfair that in this multi-religious country, the Islamic religion is the only one privileged to have an officially sanctioned separate and parallel system of existence. For instance, by government policy, only Muslims are allowed to work and slaughter meat in abattoirs for distribution and sale to the rest of the population; Muslims are the only ones lucky to have the State and Government of Uganda committed to their religiously inclined grouping (the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC)) while other religions belong to theirs by themselves, paying their own expenses there, as Muslims’ fees in OIC are paid for by all Ugandans; only Muslims have a banking system (Islamic banking) known by their religion’s name and operating on its doctrines, enshrined in law; and, by virtue of article 129 (1) (d) of the Constitution that among others provides for establishment of qadhis courts, Muslims are the only ones fortunate to have their religion, Islam, recognized and guaranteed by the State of Uganda in the supreme law of the land. All others are merely tolerated.

On this note, I learnt recently from media reports that government re-tabled in Parliament the Qadhis Courts Bill and the House is debating the Bill for passing into law. (See, for example, Absas Ssekyanzi Muluubya (Secretary General, Uganda Muslim Supreme Council), “Qadhi Courts: A Necessary Step Toward Inclusive Justice in Uganda”, Uganda Radio Network (Saturday, 4^th April, 2026). Accessed at https://ugandaradionetwork.com/s/qadhi-courts-a-necessary-step-toward-inclusive-justice-in-uganda/.) In that report, Mr. Ssekyanzi makes several claims justifying the establishment of separate courts for Muslims, which I wish to respond to and debunk in this letter, with the view of convincing government and most importantly the people of Uganda as a whole, through you gallant fellow citizens, to drop the idea of setting up qadhis courts in Uganda because they are uncalled for – totally and completely.

On Enriching Uganda’s Judicial System

Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC), through its Secretary General, Mr. Absas Ssekyanzi Muluubya, argues that qadhis courts are not a parallel judiciary, will remain firmly within Uganda’s national legal framework, functioning as a specialized component addressing Muslims’ family and personal moral and spiritual obligations within secular Uganda having a single national judiciary.

Dear fellow Ugandans, this is a highly deceptive, sweet talking argument that masks or hides the reality of the matter: that on the contrary, qadhis courts will undermine our country’s judicial system by creating within it a sectarian avenue meant to benefit a particular segment of the population (Muslims) and in the process drive an Islamic agenda in Uganda with the force and legitimacy of judicial power and moreover using public/taxpayers’ money. Establishing qadhis courts for Muslims is an expression of loss of confidence in the mainstream judiciary by UMSC for wholly unknown reasons; and that only serves to corrode and weaken Uganda’s judicial system, not enrich it.

Our judiciary is enriched when we all gather together, subject ourselves to it and serve it collectively, instead of cleverly seeking to create self-serving alternatives that tear us apart from the rest of the people within the system. I have never heard that Muslims are particularly disadvantaged in Uganda’s courts hence justifying creation of specialized courts for them, as if an affirmative action measure of sorts. So why seek to break away? This must be driven by ulterior motives of Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony, by which Moslems historically tend to choose to live separately from others (whom they fondly call kafirs), detached from and superior over them. This makes the whole agenda of creating qadhis courts suspicious and threatening to the wellbeing of Ugandans.

Concerning Respecting Uganda’s Religious and Cultural Diversity

UMSC says that qadhis courts respect the country’s religious and cultural diversity, serving as specialized forums for Muslim personal law, not a mechanism to impose Islamic law on non-Muslims.

But this is another veiled deception. You do not respect religious and cultural diversity by detaching yourself from other people to manifest your specialness and superiority over them. Far from respecting our diversity as a country, creating qadhis courts for Moslems will undermine it diversity by further inflating Muslim hegemony and flaming the embers of Islamic separatism and dominance.

They are trying to create employment and jobs solely for our Muslim brothers and sisters (but mostly brothers) just like the case is with all the situations already identified above at page 2, lines 24-31. Fellow Ugandans, is it not true that only Muslims work in abattoirs? Can you also imagine a non-Moslem representing Uganda in an OIC meeting where it is a State Party? How about Islamic banks: what are the chances that non-Muslims compete favourably with Muslims for jobs there – because, what do you know about Islamic jurisprudence and Moslem ways to ably deliver in Islamic banking? By-the-way, closely related to this, I believe Ugandans are well aware that it is next to impossible for a non-Muslim to win a significant electoral seat like MP or LC 5/District Chairperson in an area where Muslims are the majority if you are not a Moslem like them. Also, Ugandans may well know that usually it is the practice for government to appoint Muslims to work as RDCs or RCCs in places where Moslems are the majority. Why? Because generally speaking Muslims don’t like being with non-Muslims, except if they (non-Moslems) are beneath and subservient to them. Just as food for thought, it should be noted that even the premier Islamic university in our country, Islamic University in Uganda, as far as I know, has its own laws and is not governed by laws that govern other universities here, further pointing to Islamic separatism.

But, just to be clear: creating employment opportunities is very good, but how you do it also matters. You do not do so on public resources, while technically locking out other people. Perhaps it can be argued that non-Muslims can also go and study Islamic teachings and thus become able to compete favourably for jobs with Muslims: now, that is the easiest, most subtle and quickest way to Islamize a society, ensuring attainment of Islamic dominance and Muslim hegemony. No wonder UMSC says that it has an Islamic Call University College that has already launched a postgraduate program in Qadhi Court Administration, preparing professionals to ensure qadhis courts operate responsibly once legislation is enacted. UMSC institutions and programs will only serve the Islamic faith and not the nation. Why do I think so? When I was young, I used to hear that Muslim countries have given aid to Uganda, through the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council. This was unlike countries such as America, Japan or European Union states that gave to us through Government of Uganda. It is a matter of common sense that aid passed through UMSC is only accessed by Muslims, but aid passed through government is accessed by all people since government serves everyone. So Islam has always been self-centred in its dealings with us. By analogy, therefore, I doubt that UMSC trainings will be any different from the tradition of Islamic donations.

About Embracing Alternative Dispute Resolution to Ease Court Backlogs and Foster Community Harmony

UMSC says that qadhis courts represent a pragmatic solution rather than a threat in a nation increasingly embracing alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to ease court backlogs and foster community harmony.

To say that creation of qadhis courts for Muslims is an alternative dispute resolution measure for fostering community harmony and decongesting courts by reducing or even eliminating case backlog, is to bastardize the argument, to say the least. The formula for easing court backlogs is simple: appoint more judicial officers, create more courtrooms and demand efficiency from office bearers. As for fostering community harmony, alternative dispute resolution does that by bringing people together, not splintering them. Thus, for instance, local council courts are created to resolve local disputes of everyone within their community; matoput is introduced for all Acholis irrespective of their religious inclination; and so on. What is noteworthy is that ADR mechanisms serve ALL PEOPLE within their areas of operation, but not just a select few – and therein lies the essence and meaning of community harmony.

Now for qadhis courts, what cogent evidence is there showing that their absence to adjudicate marriage, divorce, inheritance and guardianship matters has led to disharmony among Muslims and that creating them will restore harmony? Absolutely none. Perhaps what the Muslim community needs is mediation but not necessarily adjudication which is what courts are fundamentally meant for.

But Ugandans will recall that in the past Muslims vehemently opposed (including organizing street protests) being subjected to the same marriage and divorce laws with non-Moslems, demanding instead a special law of their own. Over the years, as reason prevailed, that stiff opposition waned, but now UMSC is resurrecting and fuelling it through this demand for special Moslem courts. Dear Ugandans, the message to you is simple and it is a kick in the teeth: “okay, you can share the same law with us, BUT WE WON’T SHARE THE SAME COURTROOMS WITH YOU IN IMPLEMENTING IT.” At the end of the day, this achieves the grand idea of attaining Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony.

On Fulfillment of a Constitutional Promise Long Overdue

UMSC says that creating qadhis courts is not a radical innovation, but the fulfillment of a constitutional promise long overdue.

It is true the promise was made constitutionally 30 years ago; but with further and better information, we now know that that promise was in fact made on a deceptive, unpatriotic and ignorant premise of engendering Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony throughout the world and Uganda in particular. Most delegates in the Constituent Assembly were non-Muslims and were most likely unaware of this Islamic agenda as they made the Constitution.

There is a saying that the law is an ass/donkey: whatever you put on it, it carries. The promise of establishing qadhis courts enshrined in article 129 (1) (d) of the Constitution is a very bad one that should be rescinded, by Parliament deleting it (the promise) from our law books. It should not be allowed to remain there.

About Qadhis Courts Functioning as Traditional and Cultural Dispute Resolution Structures Already Recognized by Law

UMSC says that Uganda has long acknowledged the role of customary courts in resolving disputes within specific communities and that extending that principle to Muslims is simply a matter of fairness and inclusivity.

Dear reader, fairness and inclusivity, as we know them within the context of customary courts and such other avenues, entail serving ALL PEOPLE within their area of operation without discrimination on account of religion or other basis. To say that creating qadhis courts for Muslims will promote fairness and inclusivity is to vulgarize the discussion and mislead unsuspecting people. If we are to accept UMSC’s perspective, we may as well have to create courts for each and every religion, on public/taxpayers’ money. Further, we may have to also create specialized courts for all sorts of different categories of people: women vis-à-vis men; the short vis-à-vis the tall; the fat vis-à-vis the slim; the dark vis-à-vis light ones; and so. Then there will be no end to this. Remember this is how the demand for districts started and now the crave for them is totally crazy – and soon may be the case with public universities. The need for fairness and inclusivity should not be adulterated and watered down this far.

Uganda is already a confident enough nation, unafraid of accommodating the beliefs of its citizens. We have built (and continue to build) institutions that allow communities to live according to their values while remaining united under one national framework. One such institution and framework is the judiciary that serves all the people of Uganda irrespective of their religious affiliation and which by law is enjoined to take into account people’s beliefs, values, customs and practices in adjudicating disputes. In Uganda, apparently it is only Islam and our Muslim brothers and sisters that are uncomfortable being accommodated with the rest of us under this common arrangement. J For me I have never heard Muslims say that courts in Uganda as a matter of principle refuse to resolve their disputes taking into account their Islamic beliefs.

On Other African Countries Successfully Implementing Qadhis Courts

UMSC says that other countries have successfully implemented similar systems of qadhis courts, singling out Kenya and Nigeria. It premises its argument on alignment with a broader African tradition of respecting diversity within unity.

But fellow Ugandans, I believe you very well know that it is in precisely these countries that we have seen a marked rise of hostility by Muslims against non-Moslems especially Christians. In Kenya, Muslim terrorists would stop buses on highways, order their fellow Moslems to separate themselves from non-Muslims and then shoot to death the non-Muslims! In Nigeria, unlawful killings of innocent Christians, burning churches by Muslims and judicially endorsed executions of non-believers of Prophet Muhammad by Sharia courts is the order of the day. Those are the countries that UMSC wants us to emulate in its quest for deepening Islamic philosophy in Uganda. Wow. This surely is an insult to our innate intelligence and slap in our faces.

The people at UMSC must think that Ugandans are stupid people. When citizens are senselessly and mercilessly killed by Islamists in the guise of upholding sharia law and other Islamic teachings, then definitely secular governance and peaceful coexistence are undermined and national identity fractured. Establishment of qadhis courts in Uganda will provide further fertile ground for that and incidents like we saw recently in (was it?) Yumbe District where an imam directed Muslim youths to attack and destroy places selling pork and announced a ban on rearing pigs in the district. As Islamic philosophy is entrenched in Uganda, such incidents will become more frequent in even more places. Ugandans should watch out.

Concerning Family Disputes Often Languishing for Years in Mainstream Courts

UMSC argues that the benefits of qadhis courts are both practical and principled, in the sense that family disputes often languish for years in mainstream courts, draining families emotionally and financially, yet qadhis courts, through mediation rooted in Islamic jurisprudence, can resolve such cases more efficiently, reducing the burden on conventional courts.

This is the same as the issue on case backlog in courts; and as I said earlier at page 6, lines 126-127, the solution to the problem lies in extending judicial services closer to the people through appointing more judicial officers, establishing more mainstream courts and ensuring efficiency of office bearers, but not creating new innovations like qadhis courts. The claim that mediation rooted in Islamic jurisprudence can resolve family disputes more efficiently requires more sound, supported and convincing evidence, not just sweeping assertions.

On Local Qadhis and Religious Leaders Already Mediating Family Disputes across the Country Resolving Matters far More Swiftly with Respected and Enforced Outcomes within the Muslim Community

UMSC says that across Uganda, informal Islamic personal law mechanisms already operate, that families who have waited months – or even years – for cases to progress through mainstream courts often turn to community qadhis whose outcomes, though informal, are respected and enforced within the Muslim community due to their grounding in faith. That therefore, legislation is needed to bring transparency, accountability and professional standards to a system already serving thousands relying on moral authority.

Well, if this is true, then that is good and goes to support my view that qadhis courts are not at all needed on the government and indeed country’s payroll. They are already working well for Muslims and at their expense, so why involve the rest of us in their activities and at our expense. To my mind, it is pretty much like the Church has its canon laws that it uses to handle their religious affairs: we do not see them demanding that government legislate and fund them. Disinterested parties like Moslems are therefore not in any way involved in the Church’s affairs. So why should Muslims be disingenuous and turn around seeking to involve disinterested parties in their Islamic religious affairs? I think Church leaders should be on the frontline of refusing creeping Islamic parasitism and resisting this Muslim-agitated and government-led Islamization of our country through designs like qadhis courts.

Otherwise, I think UMSC is lying and hiding the truth of the matter: if at all those courts exist and people go to them, then it must be that their outcomes are not respected and followed by the people. You see, Islamism is well known for its inherent unfairness and imbalances and is actually contested and increasingly rejected world over, including in its birthplace and stronghold, the Middle East. So, as administrators, UMSC officials feel under-looked and even cheated after spending a lot of time, money and energy in the process. The solution? Back, reinforce and clothe their activities with the force of law and judicial power, binding and enforced on those who mistake the mistake of resorting to them – no turning back. J For us in intellectual spaces, it is well known that Islam cannot thrive and exist long outside the State. This is playing out now in Uganda through the quest for qadhis courts to formalize and legitimize informal Islamic law mechanisms. In addition to creating employment exclusively for Muslims, qadhis courts are a money making scheme by UMSC officials from public coffers.

About Many Muslims Turning to Community-Based Qadhis Courts Because Mainstream Courts are Costly and Intimidating

UMSC argues that mainstream courts are costly and intimidating and therefore many Muslims turn to community-based dispute resolution in qadhis courts to access justice. Further, that this is not merely a matter of convenience, but dignity and fairness for poorer families.

The question of high costs, affordability and intimidation in court settings and the need for dignity and fairness there is not unique to Muslims. By-the-way, imagine, even in Britain where we get the bulk of our adversarial system, intimidation in courtrooms is also a present issue. But as a country, we should devise national and unifying solutions to such national challenges, instead of retreating to sectarian machinations to overcome our otherwise collective problems. So, since we agree that these problems face all Ugandans irrespective of religion, does that mean we should set up specialized courts for every religion? I do not think that is wise.

Your Excellency, Honourable Members of Parliament and fellow Ugandans, in the final analysis, I am of the considered view that establishing qadhis courts does not represent a meaningful and pragmatic solution to solving problems in our country, particularly the judiciary. Contrary to what UMSC says, they are a threat to our national harmony, stability and progress.

The mainstream courts are available to all citizens and Muslims have also used them to resolve their disputes ever since our country was born. I have never heard them say that they are specifically denied services and justice there. The problems Moslems face (if at all) are the same problems faced by people of other religions. So, why give them preferential treatment, if not for purposes of sheer Islamic separatism, dominance and Muslim hegemony in our country?

The Government of Uganda is creating in Uganda an apartheid state for Moslems. At this rate, our Muslim brothers and sisters are soon demanding their own political and administrative leaderships, exclusive amenities like roads, airports and other public infrastructure – and judging from the look of things, this government will grant them those demands. Very absurd! The people of Uganda should rise up, in accordance with the law, in resistance to the steady Islamization of our country in the name of inclusivity and cultural diversity, if government does not listen and scrap this idea of operationalizing qadhis courts and altogether delete the provision of them in article 129 (1) (d) of the Constitution.

It appears that inclusivity and diversity only make sense and apply when Muslims are the ones on the receiving and benefitting end. If indeed UMSC is genuine in what it is saying and truly respects Uganda’s religious and cultural diversity, then let it, for example, open up and for starters allow non-Muslims to also work in abattoirs and the meat distribution industry across the country. Minus that, do not expect to continue easily fooling the people of Uganda anymore.

Yours faithfully,

[signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Mobile: +256753124713 and +256772748300.

Email: bakampasenior@gmail.com.

Web: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com

Proposed Amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules Concerning Order 46, Rule 1 (1)

BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

MOBILE: +256753124713 / +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB ADDRESS: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Thursday, 12^th March, 2026.

To:

The Principal Judge/Chairperson, Judiciary Law Reform Committee,

Courts of Judicature,

High Court Building,

Plot 2, The Square,

P.O. Box 7085, Kampala, Uganda.

Your Lordship,

Re: Another Proposed Amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules

In my letter addressed to you dated Monday, 23^rd February, 2026 and delivered to Your Lordship’s chambers on the same day, I proposed amendments to the rules of civil procedure in the courts of judicature, particularly concerning the time for filing affidavits in reply and mandatory furnishing of security for costs (a copy of the cover page of the letter is hereon attached).

The letter was duly served on the Principal Judge and Chief Registrar as confirmed by their stamps signifying receipt of it.

On this occasion, however, I am urged to seek your indulgence to propose yet another amendment to The Civil Procedure Rules, Statutory Instrument 71–1 (hereinafter “the Civil Procedure Rules” or “the CPR”), concerning order 46, rule 1 (1) which to my mind is inconsistent with and ultra vires its parent section i.e. section 82 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 282 (hereinafter “the CPA”) and is therefore null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Your Lordship, I contend that order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR is in excess of the provisions of section 82 of the CPA and is therefore ultra vires, illegal and unlawful. The Civil Procedure Rules are delegated legislation which must conform to the power granted and not conflict with the Act from which it originates (or any other Act, for that matter). The rules are made under the CPA and that Act permits unconditional exercise of review power (save for not having preferred an appeal against the decision sought to be reviewed or no appeal from it is allowed by the Act) under section 82 which states as follows–

82. Review.

Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved—

(a)     by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or

(b)    by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act,

may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order on the decree or order as it thinks fit. (Emphasis is in the original.)

It is trite law that where delegated legislation exceeds the powers granted or conflicts with an Act, it is said to be ultra vires and null and void; and this is exactly what order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR is: it is in excess of section 82 of the CPA by imposing conditions on the exercise of review power which the Act from which it emanates does not impose. The rule states–

ORDER XLVI—REVIEW.

1. Application for review of judgment.

(1) Any person considering himself or herself aggrieved—

(a)    by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or

(b)    by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed,

and who from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his or her knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him or her, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order. (Emphasis is in the original.)

The offending provision in the rule is the rider stating that: and who from the discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his or her knowledge or could not be produced by him or her at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him or her,

The Interpretation Act, Cap. 2 forbids, in section 18 (4), statutory instruments being inconsistent with their parent Acts. The section states:

18. General provisions relating to statutory instruments.

(4) Any provision of a statutory instrument which is inconsistent with any provision of the Act under which the instrument was made shall be void to the extent of the inconsistency. (Emphasis is in the original.)

I contend that to the extent that order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR imposes conditions on the exercise of review power yet section 82 of the CPA does not impose such or any conditions at all on the exercise of the power of review, the rule is inconsistent with and ultra vires the section and is therefore null and void to the extent of the inconsistency, in light of section 18 (4) of the Interpretation Act. The rule is ultra vires because the extra conditions it embodies (i.e. that there is new and important evidence discovered that was previously unavailable to the person applying for review, or that the court made mistakes or errors in its record/decision) are illegal by virtue of them exceeding the conditions principally determined and set by the parent Act. Section 82 of the CPA is very clear and express in its terms and so in that regard is a mandatory provision of the Act which order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR is directly inconsistent with. Beyond reasonable doubt, order 46, rule 1 (1) is a clear violation of section 82 and should be found null and void by the Judiciary Law Reform Committee and the Rules Committee.

Order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR is illegal since it is in more restrictive terms than section 82 of the CPA because the former is not as wide as the latter. Unlike section 82 which is conditionless (save for not having appealed against the decision sought to be reviewed or no appeal from it being allowed by the Act), order 46, rule 1 (1) imposes conditions on the exercise of review power, empowering this court to review its own decisions only where there is new and important evidence discovered that was previously unavailable to the person applying for review, or that the court made mistakes or errors in its record/decision. Hence, because of the restrictiveness of order 46, rule 1 (1), I contend that a court decision cannot be reviewed under it on account of, for example, bias and prejudice on the part of a judicial officer. This, to my mind, brings order 46, rule 1 (1) into sharp contrast with section 82, rendering its legality questionable insofar as it exceeds what the Act stipulates. Clearly the rule fails to conform to the statute under which it is made by exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the parent Act. This makes the rule unjust.

Your Lordship, I have personally tasted the unjustness and indeed harshness of this rule, in my still ongoing case, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General, Miscellaneous Application No. HCT-00-CV-MA-0911-2024 (hereinafter “Bakampa v. AG (2024)” that is pending ruling before Justice Teko Isaac Bonny. Briefly, that is an application for review brought by notice of motion under sections 82 and 98 of the CPA and order 46, rule 1 of the CPR seeking, among others, an order quashing and setting aside a previous ruling in Miscellaneous Cause No. 129 of 2021, Bakampa Brian Baryaguma v. Attorney General, on ground that the trial of the cause was unfair on account of bias by the trial Judge, resulting in miscarriage of justice. It will be seen that I was forced to travel beyond section 82 to section 98 of the CPA because the restrictiveness of order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR did not allow me to apply for review of the trial Judge’s decision under section 82 of the CPA for unfairness due to bias and prejudice on her part in the parent cause. The rule is a hindrance and nuisance to litigants’ access to review justice in courts.

Resultantly, therefore, by enacting the rider in order 46, rule 1 (1), the Rules Committee is clearly in excess of power. The conferment of rulemaking power by the Judicature Act, Cap. 16[1] does not enable the Rules Committee to make a rule that travels beyond the scope of the enabling Act (the CPA) or which is inconsistent with it or repugnant thereto or affects other existing legislations. It is my considered view that the Rules Committee is a delegate exercising delegated authority, which authority it, as a delegate, must exercise within the four corners of its delegation[2] and if it acts beyond that, its action cannot have any legal sanction and accordingly ought to be amended. If the Committee feels that its conditions imposed on the parent section are truly necessary and justified, then it should have the humility and courtesy to move parliament to include them in the Act, but not usurp parliament’s legislative powers.

Your Lordship, I conclude by reasserting strongly that to the extent that order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR imposes conditions on the exercise of review power which section 82 of the CPA does not itself impose, the rule is inconsistent with and ultra vires the section and is therefore null and void to the extent of the inconsistency, in light of section 18 (4) of the Interpretation Act.

In Bakampa v. AG (2024), I requested Teko J. to declare order 46, rule 1 (1) of the CPR to be inconsistent with and ultra vires section 82 of the CPA and is therefore null and void to the extent of the inconsistency.

Until then, ruling making being the province of the Rules Committee, preceded and informed/advised by the Judiciary Law Reform Committee, I invite the two eminent Committees to do the needful. I so move, Your Lordship.

For God and my country,

 [signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Lawyer

Mob.: +256753124713 and +256772748300.

Email: bakampasenior@gmail.com.

 

Copy to:      Secretary, Judiciary Law Reform Committee/Chief Registrar

---

[1] Section 45 (1) of The Judicature Act mandates the Rules Committee to make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of courts. It states that, “The Rules Committee may, by statutory instrument, make rules for regulating the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court of Uganda and for all other courts in Uganda subordinate to the High Court.”

[2] In this respect, to my mind, the four corners of the Rules Committee’s delegation are to be ascertained from the provisions of section 82 of the CPA that is already reproduced above at page 2 lines 29-36.

Complaint on Evils in Judiciary Committed by Judges Wamala Boniface and Karemani Jamson

 BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA

MOBILE: +256753124713 / +256772748300;

EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;

WEB: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;

Kampala, Uganda.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Monday, 23^rd February, 2026.

To:

H.E. Gen. (Rtd) Yoweri Kaguta Museveni,

President of the Republic of Uganda,

Office of the President,

P.O. Box 7168, KAMPALA.

Your Excellency,

Re:  Complaint on Evils in Judiciary Committed by Judges Wamala Boniface and Karemani Jamson

1.                 Introduction

“Let us dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world,” Robert Francis Kennedy.

The letter was duly served on HE the President and all other stakeholders, as evidenced by his handler's signature and the various stamps.

Mr. President, thank you for your good work in and for Uganda. God bless you. With great concern and broken heartedness, I report to Your Excellency a plethora of malpractices in Uganda’s judiciary, in your constitutional capacities of “Head of State, Head of Government … and the Fountain of Honour” as stipulated by article 98 (1) of the Constitution. I hope you find time to investigate these malpractices and take remedial action; and since judges are involved, I request that you put this complaint before Cabinet for advice to you in terms of article 144 (4) of the Constitution or proceed on it as you deem fit, in accordance with the law.

Before much ado, please allow me remind Your Excellency that I filed another complaint with you against High Court Judge, Elubu Michael, on Wednesday, 7^th December, 2022, which unfortunately you have not yet worked on (a cover letter of the complaint is hereon attached as “A” for your reference; the complaint is accessible online at https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2022/12/investigation-and-removal-from-office.html). I request you to expeditiously dispose of that complaint, Mr. President. Why is it important to address complaints against wrongdoers? To encourage and promote meritocracy for mainly four reasons: one, to protect your personal legacy and that of the government you lead. Many years from now people will look back to your time in office and ask whether you did a good job while at it and they will judge you deservedly. Mr. President, after 40 years in power and leadership of our country (since 1986), the people we are complaining about are your products: trained, recruited and supervised by you. These are not colonial, Obote’s or Amin’s people. They are yours; and if they are of low grade caliber, then you take blame for it, as they stain and corrupt your legacy; two, to motivate good performers by punishing deviant characters. Surely it is unfair that those who serve well with integrity end up either the same or even worse than bad performers. We must make virtue fashionable again; three, to set an example for fresh entrants into and people aspiring to join the judicial service: good and honest service will be rewarded while bad and dishonest delivery will be sanctioned; and, four, to placate the aggrieved. Please hear out the complainants and give us administrative justice because the complaints avenue is the only one left and available in law to express displeasure and seek redress, as both government and the offending individual officer are immune from ordinary/direct prosecution for wrongs done. Now if you also render this sole avenue idle and inaccessible, who are you really helping or serving here? I think that only emboldens the oppressors, leading us to end up with a mafia judiciary par excellence; which, mark you, also makes you look bad, passing you off as also being heartless and mindless like these wrongdoers, taking pleasure in seeing the people of Uganda suffering at their hands by being denied justice; because otherwise why shield and protect them from accountability? Anyway, Your Excellency, please know that ineptness and impunity among some judicial officers is becoming too much, unbearable and intolerable. Being the fountain of honor in this country and also their appointing authority, please sort out the mess.

2.                 Background to this Complaint

In January 2023, the Law Development Centre (LDC) – oh yes, that notoriously cruel, oppressive, tyrannical, corrupt and Godforsaken institution – brought taxation proceedings against me in the High Court at Kampala (Civil Division). The taxation was handled by His Worship Jamson Karemani, who is now a judge of the High Court. So, my concerns about him in this complaint relate to him in his former capacity as Registrar, High Court, exercising powers of taxing officer.

The taxation resulted from an award of costs made by Judge Elubu Michael, ordering me to pay LDC for its costs incurred in my 2019 cause against it, which he grossly mishandled, as was well explained in my complaint against him that is alluded to above and referenced as annexure “A” hereto. At the start of taxation proceedings on Wednesday, 7^th September 2022, at 12:00pm, before Registrar Karemani, I objected to the process by raising a point of law to the effect that LDC cannot recover its costs against me because its advocates, Musiime John and Mugira Kenneth, committed offences in the conduct of the cause by virtue of which costs are irrecoverable in law. I therefore requested that the matter be referred to a Judge of the High Court for decision and direction going forward. In reply to my preliminary objection, Mr. Mugira Kenneth suggested that since I raised the question of the legality of the award of costs as a ground of appeal in my appeal to the Court of Appeal, we wait for the Court to handle the issue. I did not object to this proposition because ordinarily it made good sense and in principle it was in my favour as it lifted from me the burden of incurring costs – even if only temporarily. Hence Taxing Officer Karemani Jamson took the reasoning of Mr. Mugira and decided that we wait for the outcome of my appeal and if the Court of Appeal allows, then taxation can be done at that time. Your Excellency, the God I love and serve saved me from LDC’s and Judge Elubu Michael’s burden of costs. In a turn of events, however, on Tuesday, 17^th January 2023, LDC’s advocates met with Registrar Karemani, in a court hearing I did not attend, where it was decided that taxation proceedings proceed and that I file a formal application stating why the dispute should be referred to a judge. Mr. Mugira informed me of the Taxing Officer’s decision. I prepared a parties written consent for reference that is stipulated by The Advocates Act and The Advocates (Taxation of Costs) (Appeals and References) Regulations, which I sent to LDC’s lawyers for consent, but they refused to sign it. At the taxation hearing of Wednesday, 8^th February, 2023 at 10:15am, I told Registrar Karemani Jamson that the advocates refused to consent for reference and requested him to make the reference to a judge on his own motion, but he also refused saying that he cannot identify issues for me. That was a flimsy excuse to give because he does not have to identify issues since that is done during trial before the judge. His (Karemani’s) duty was to make the reference for the reasons identified by me and leave it there. Anyway, out of frustration due to the impasse created, I asked him what I should do and he directed that I file a notice of motion. I argued that it is not provided for in law but my protest fell on deaf ears. He warned that if I do not do as he says, he will continue with taxation. He was somewhat hostile to me on this and the subsequent hearing of Monday, 22^nd May, 2023. Eventually BOTH he and Mr. Mugira advised me to proceed under general provisions of law under sections 33 and 98 of The Judicature Act and The Civil Procedure Act respectively; and having nothing to do about it, I did as they said or else taxation would continue and a bill of costs slapped on me. With hindsight, I see that Registrar Karemani Jamson conspired and colluded with LDC and its advocates to deliberately set me on a wrong course in order to defeat my claim on a technicality when the matter goes before a judge for trial. It was all a choreographed mockery and caricature of justice.

3.                 Substance of the Complaint

“The level of unseriousness exhibited by some judicial officers is gross, unacceptable and injurious to the stability and progress of our country. It is not funny anymore!” Bakampa Brian Baryaguma, in the complaint to President Museveni against Justice Elubu Michael, dated Tuesday, 6^th December, 2022, at page 2 lines 12-14.

When I filed my formal application in court challenging the legality of LDC’s bill of costs, it was allocated to Judge Wamala Boniface for determination; although to my mind now, for reasons as will be seen in the discussion below, the allocation to him does not look like a spontaneous and innocent exercise, but rather a pre-designed scheme where he gets LDC cases for him to issue decisions in its favour. Mr. President, I think Judges Wamala and Elubu Michael and Registrar Karemani Jamson are LDC-client judicial officers lending themselves to help clean, sanitize and quick-fix its messes, for a fee in return. It is a grand corruption enterprise. Why do I think and say so? Because it is logically inconceivable how an otherwise intelligent person can lend himself to debauchery, allowing to be stained with LDC’s stupidity and carry the stench of its foolishness, without some sort of reward or benefit obtained. Anyway, discussed below is the gist of my complaints against Judges Wamala Boniface and Karemani Jamson.

Relating to Wastage of Judicial Resources

Judge Wamala Boniface, at page 6, paragraph 13 of his ruling (a copy of the ruling is hereon attached and marked as “B”), observed that I should have appealed against Registrar Karemani’s decision staying the taxation proceedings pending the determination of my appeal in the Court of Appeal and quoted legal provisions to this effect. But those provisions clearly state that an “aggrieved” person should be the one who appeals to a judge of the High Court. So, to a sensible and discerning mind, the question is whether I was a person aggrieved by the decision staying taxation proceedings; and the short, direct and quick answer is, “No, I was not”, because the effect of that decision was in my favour and best interest. How or why? It removed/postponed the burden of LDC’s bill of costs on me – even if only temporarily. Look here, my primary and legal interest in raising the preliminary objection to the bill was to have it quashed/nullified. Therefore, ANYTHING that gave me that result or brought me close to it was good and welcome news to me; and accordingly, it follows that I cannot (and would not) have been aggrieved by Taxing Officer Karemani’s decision staying taxation proceedings so as to appeal against it. This is simple logic. I believe Judge Wamala Boniface is now sober after delivering on his assignment of frustrating my search for justice on behalf of LDC in his court and is thus able to look at things more objectively and fairly now: does it make sense to you, with hindsight, to say that I should have appealed against Registrar Karemani’s decision staying taxation proceedings pending the Court of Appeal’s determination of my appeal? I doubt. So your observation is redundant, a waste of yours and readers time and energy, a flagrant waste of scarce judicial resources in terms of ink, paper, manpower and time, that should be castigated and condemned with all the contempt it deserves.

On Exhibiting Double Standards in Deciding Cases

Also at page 6, paragraph 13 of his ruling, Judge Wamala Boniface described my application before him as a “mirage” for, as he reasoned at page 7, paragraph 15, “totally adopting a wrong or non-existing procedure.” Meanwhile, the same Judge (Wamala Boniface) allowed LDC to adopt and follow an outright, ridiculously wrong and non-existing procedure in the case of Law Development Centre v. Hon. Michael Mabikke, Miscellaneous Application No. 203 of 2021 (hereinafter “the Mabikke case”). Briefly, in that case, Hon. Mabikke filed a civil suit by way of ordinary plaint against LDC. The civil procedure rules stipulate that when someone files a plaint against you, you file a written statement of defence (WSD) and state your response to the case against you. But what did LDC do? They instead filed a miscellaneous application by notice of motion. This is a totally wrong and non-exiting procedure in law, within the context of that case. Yet Judge Wamala Boniface allowed LDC’s case, struck out a plaint through a miscellaneous application and awarded LDC costs in both the application and the main suit (i.e. plaint) even though LDC did not participate in it. Ridiculous!

Now, really, can Judge Wamala tell us under what law he proceeded to permit and himself do all these convoluted and chaotic things? So, to Judge Wamala, it is okay when LDC does a wrong thing willingly but very bad and unacceptable when I do more or less the same thing under compulsion, moreover forced by LDC. Oh wow! Your Excellency, I think we can agree that a judge who exhibits double standards in deciding cases of a similar nature is shameless, corrupt and crooked. You may think that he had forgotten what he did in the Mabikke case; no, he hadn’t, because I cited it in my submissions and attached a copy for his reference. So he does these things deliberately/intentionally. He is a very biased, unjust and unfair man, who does not deserve the title of “Justice”. By-the-way, it should be noted that the same advocates (Agaba Kenneth Mugira and Musiime John) were representing LDC in the Mabikke case. Apparently LDC and these two lawyers are very lucky in the court of Judge Wamala Boniface in the sense that he so readily accepts and entertains their trash and nonsense. No wonder they and their client, LDC, do not want to meaningfully settle this dispute out of court with me because they know that judges and other court officers are in their pockets doing their bidding and so they are assured of victory, however bad their case is – and it is really very bad. Mr. President, it is important for people to know and understand that not every matter or dispute should be argued or defended; liability in some (like in my ongoing cases with LDC) should be honorably admitted and settled amicably or simply left for the law to take its course and submit to judgement.

Anyway, this was not a case I should have lost on proper application of legal principles, before an impartial, open minded and fair court. In my submissions, I reminded Judge Wamala of the case law maxim in our jurisprudence stating that the rules of procedure, being the handmaids of justice, should not at the same time be used to defeat its ends. To buttress my case, I gave him five (5) good, concrete (and I really mean CONCRETE) reasons, supported with statute and precedent authorities, to overlook the procedural defect in my application and determine it on its merits. They were so good that any one of them would have been enough to convince an open minded and impartial court to agree and accede to the request. I belabored to give them so as to avoid accusations of not having guided the court in exercise of its discretion. The Supreme Court held, in the case of  National Union of Clerical, Commercial, Professional and Technical Employees v. National Insurance Corporation, Civil Appeal No. 17 of 1993 (hereinafter “the NUCCPT Employees case”), at page 7, that–

It is now settled that the existence of a specific procedure, provision or remedy cannot operate to restrict or exclude the courts’ inherent jurisdiction under … statute. Clearly the existence of a specific rule cannot override the statutory provisions … which gives wide residual powers to the court to prevent or correct any injustice. The question whether a court should invoke its inherent powers in a given case is a matter for the Court’s discretion which should be exercised judicially. The availability of an alternative remedy or specific provision is only one of the factors to be taken into account, but does not limit or remove the court’s jurisdiction. The issue, therefore, is not one of jurisdiction, but one of discretion.

From the Court’s discussion and analysis, the question of whether or not a court of law invokes its inherent powers or jurisdiction to disregard a specific provision or procedure provided by the law depends on what the demands of justice are. In most cases this power can be invoked if there is no remedy provided to an aggrieved party or where the remedy so provided by the law is not readily accessible to the aggrieved party. My application before Judge Wamala Boniface fell under the latter category of “where the remedy so provided by the law is not readily accessible to the aggrieved party” because the moment the court (Taxing Officer Karemani Jamson) joined/colluded with LDC’s advocates to frustrate me from bringing the query as to the legality of LDC’s bill of costs by way of reference under the specialized legal regime that addresses taxation dispute matters and instead advised and forced me to bring my query by way of notice of motion under general provisions of law, then the remedy/procedure of reference ceased being available to me there and then.

But Judge Wamala tried amateurishly and utterly disingenuously to bring my application within the ambit of the category of cases where there is a remedy provided to an aggrieved party in which case then inherent powers cannot be invoked. He did this by observing/suggesting/advising, at page 6, paragraph 13 of the ruling, that I should have appealed against Registrar Karemani’s decision staying the taxation proceedings pending the determination of my appeal in the Court of Appeal. But as already explained above at pages 6-7 lines 128-143, that remedy was not accessible/available to me because I was not aggrieved by the said Registrar’s decision and so could not appeal against it. I believe Judge Wamala had the NUCCPT Employees case in mind and was desperately trying to avoid being bound by it since being a Supreme Court decision it is binding on him, a judge of the High Court. Mr. President, it is  very absurd when a judicial officer (more so a senior one at the level of judge, sitting in a superior court of record like the High Court) circumvents the law for his/her own convenience and the benefit of his/her favoured party in a case. Also important to understand is that Judge Wamala circumvented the NUCCPT Employees precedent and dismissed my application on a procedural technicality in order to get a way of portraying me as someone who is stupid and ignorant of the law and legal procedures; so much that I do not know what I am doing. It is a tactic used by pro-LDC judicial officers to humiliate and dehumanize students suing LDC. It gets fictitious victories in courts against students: certainly that is what has happened with me twice now. LDC’s sympathizers use defaming methods to justify its continued relevancy and existence as being still needed to train ‘poor quality’ students who do not want to study and instead resort to court for shortcuts. These highly placed shameless liars will be exposed for the whole world to see and know them for the lies they spew and peddle from their high seats of power and privilege. Purveyors of falsehoods, as the Good Book, the Bible (Mathew 7:16-20) says, shall be known by their fruits.

To Do with Utterly Wrong/Improper Exercise of Judicial Discretion

Judge Wamala Boniface dismissed my application with costs to LDC. This decision is very unfortunate and absurd on the facts of this case. Here is why: I bring an illegality to the attention of court with incontrovertible evidence, the illegality is not disputed at all and is therefore proved, I attempt to follow the right/proper procedure to inform court of the illegality, but I am frustrated by the wrongdoer, the court (Taxing Officer Karemani Jamson) joins/colludes with the offender in frustrating me and both of them force me to adopt a wrong procedure or else I meet with dire consequences i.e. proceeding with taxation leading to possible imprisonment in civil prison upon failure to pay the taxed costs. Verily in such circumstances, no sensible and fair minded judge would make such an order. Much as costs are discretional, meaning that it is up to the trial judge to decide whether or not to award them, this was an utterly wrong/improper exercise of discretion. The award is unconscionable in law.

On the contrary, I am of the view that if at all Judge Wamala felt strongly inclined to dismiss my application out of probably the need to uphold the sanctity of legal procedures/processes, then this was one of those rare cases where costs should have been awarded to me, the applicant whose application has nevertheless been dismissed, at least as punishment to the criminals and saboteurs of legitimate and proper court processes (those being Mugira Kenneth and Musiime John who committed offences under the Advocates Act). Why award me costs? Because none of whatever went wrong was my fault; on the contrary, everything that went wrong was the fault of the opposite party (LDC) and ironically the court through the Taxing Officer, Karemani Jamson. But in awarding costs against me who tried to do what was right, Judge Wamala Boniface is effectively rewarding and encouraging wrongdoers in committing offences and abusing court processes. Your Excellency, it is very painful to wait years for a court decision that ordinarily by law should be issued within six (6) months, but when it finally comes after a long wait, it is a stupid ruling or judgment.

But there is a more hideous and sinister reason indicative of judicial sadism why Judge Wamala made this outrageously unconscionable order of costs against me: it is a cleverly designed trap to, one, ensnare me so that I may be imprisoned in civil prison for non-payment of LDC’s costs; and two, prevent me from opting for the cheaper option of applying for review of court’s ruling. You may wonder how or why I think so. Simple: since Judge Wamala did not dismiss my application on its merits but on a technicality, I have two options available to me in law to have his decision revisited if dissatisfied with it: review or appeal. The latter, appeal, is to a higher court, in this case the Court of Appeal. It is tedious, involving a lot of paperwork that makes it naturally expensive. Moreover, by command of the law, I have to pay mandatory shillings two hundred thousand (UGX 200,000) as statutory security for costs. Money I could have used more productively to better myself is wasted in ordinarily unnecessary and avoidable litigation. Very terrible! These are the people who deepen and perpetuate poverty in the world.

The option of review, however, is cheaper because ordinarily it involves little paperwork and does not attract statutory security for costs. BUT (and this is a big but, mark you) opting for review means that LDC would be free to apply to court demanding that I deposit security for its costs in case I lose the review case, failing which it (the review case) cannot progress to hearing in court – and knowing our courts very well, LDC’s application would certainly be granted. Now, here is the trick: the security for costs ordered by court in this scenario would be far much more than the statutory UGX 200,000 for appealing (it can even be 10 times more). This would give LDC the easy and perfect excuse to commit me to civil prison for non-payment of costs, as my review case also dies a natural death. So, to avoid this eventuality, the option of appealing to the Court of Appeal is the only viable one left to me. And in this lies the other motivation for Judge Wamala wanting to dissuade me from applying for review: that is, to avoid taking the application back to him because the law dictates that it has to be sent to him to review his decision. Clearly, this is another example of incidents where lower judicial officers abuse the availability of the appeal mechanism by dodging work themselves or doing it shoddily, thereby instead leaving the burden to their colleagues on the higher bench. There are words and phrases that aptly describe this behavior in one of our local dialects, the Luganda language: okukongola and okukola gadibe ngalye. Hence such people are bakongozi i.e. lazy fellows, needing to be denounced.

4.                 Conclusion

Our lives are not worth living if we don’t have our freedom. They may take our lives, but they can never take our freedom. What we do in this life echoes in eternity.

Your Excellency, Judges Wamala Boniface and Karemani Jamson are duplicitous men without honour. They are active enablers of the system of administrators and judicial actors who want to have me committed to civil prison. I know this because Mr. Musiime John threatened me with civil prison in the taxation hearing of Monday, 22^nd May, 2023 before Registrar Karemani Jamson. These people see me as a spoiler for exposing, fighting and stepping in their plate (read LDC) from which they are profiteering by admitting students in large numbers, but failing them en masse, after charging/milking exorbitant sums of money from them; and so, imprisoning me is their way of getting at and revenging against me. The system itself is against me for challenging their beloved LDC. No wonder the Court of Appeal is denying me justice by refusing to give me a panel to hear and determine my appeal against LDC, thus risking rendering the case moot, since the Attorney General is moving to make a law that would permanently prevent me from ever becoming an advocate of the courts of judicature to practise my profession. I reported to and addressed Your Excellency extensively on this matter in my letter to you and selected Cabinet Ministers, delivered to your office on Wednesday, 21^st January, 2026 at page 6 lines 110-118 and page 8 lines 165-174 (a copy of the  cover page of the letter is hereon attached and marked as “C”; also accessible online at https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2026/01/request-to-president-and-selected.html). Mr. President, I finalize by repeating my earlier request that you give Ugandans administrative justice. Please investigate and remove Judges Wamala Boniface and Karemani Jamson from our judiciary. These and other debauchees are creating an absurd system where a person who complies or attempts to comply with law and legal procedures ends up the same or even worse than those who sabotage legitimate court processes. This is unacceptable.

For God and my country,

 [signed]

Bakampa Brian Baryaguma

Mobile:       0753124713 / 0772748300.

Email:         bakampasenior@gmail.com.

Web:           www.huntedthinker.blogspot.ug.

 

Copy to:     The Hon. the Chief Justice

Hon. Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs

President, Uganda Law Society

Secretary, Judicial Service Commission