BAKAMPA
BRIAN BARYAGUMA
MOBILE: +256753124713 / +256772748300;
EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;
WEB: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;
Kampala, Uganda.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Tuesday, 6th
December, 2022.
To:
H.E. the President,
Republic of Uganda,
Office of the President,
P.O. Box 7168, Kampala, Uganda.
Your Excellency,
Re: Investigation and Removal from Office of Justice Elubu Michael
 |
| [Note for the reader: hard copies of this letter were duly served on H.E. the President and other government officers on Wednesday, 7 December, 2022, as evidenced by the stamps and signatures confirming receipt in the image here.] |
1.
Introduction
“If we do not defend
justice, justice will not defend us,” Francis Bacon.
I humbly move Your Excellency to convene Cabinet and set in motion
a process of investigating and removing from office, a judge of the High Court,
Justice Elubu Michael, for incompetence under article 144 (2) (c) of the
Constitution. He grossly mismanaged my case before him in a manner unexpected
of a judge and to unacceptable levels, as explained below.
Mr. President, you are empowered by article 144 (3) of the
Constitution to remove a judge from office for incompetence. You head Cabinet,
which is mandated, under article 144 (4), to recommend to you the question
whether the removal of a judge should be investigated. I therefore request you
to table this matter before Cabinet for its consideration.
Your Excellency, 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! As a matter of fact, when I was still waiting
for the decision of Justice Elubu Michael, one seasoned advocate told me, in
reference to High Court judges, that, “Ahhhh...! Those ones are unpredictable
and unserious! You walk with a notice of appeal in the pocket.” As it turned out,
quite sadly, the advocate was right: I eventually needed one. I remember that
when I was still a university student 10 years ago, such dismissive perceptions
and tendencies were often held of magistrates. Many magistrates say or think that
since they are not courts of record, they are free to write anything in their
judgments and any unhappy person may go to the High Court for correction. It is
unfortunate that this rot is now at the High Court. Very soon this carelessness
will be at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court if the mess is not
cleared.
Mr. President, as may be seen in the tone of my letter, I am very
disappointed and angry; but certainly not bitter. I am very sorry about this. But
if anyone places himself or herself in my position, he or she will understand
where I am coming from. Like King Leah, in William Shakespeare’s play, King Leah, I am a man more sinned
against than sinning. As for my uncharitable remarks to and descriptions of Justice
Elubu Michael, the Good Book – the Bible – says in 1 Timothy 5:20, that,
“Rebuke publicly all those who commit sins, so that the rest may be afraid.”
Justice Elubu committed a great sin of subverting justice. This dehumanizes me,
offends the conscience of humanity and profanes God. Justice Elubu Michael’s removal
from office is therefore in defence of justice itself.
However, I am worried that Justice Elubu Michael and his
sympathizers may most likely attempt to frustrate this endeavor through bogus
legal machinations, for him to escape liability and evade justice. I inform
such people in advance that this is an administrative measure in the Executive
that, under separation of powers, should not be unduly hindered by legalese in
the Judiciary.
2.
Appreciation and Commendation
“Sometimes it falls upon a generation to be great. You can be that
great generation,” Nelson Mandela.
Before much ado, allow me to appreciate and commend Your
Excellency for your sound and exemplary leadership in Uganda, Africa and the
world. There is so much to thank you for that space is not enough here. Under
your leadership, Uganda has grown tremendously in all respects of national development.
Our image and reputation have also soared in the community of nations. Thank
you.
More particularly, I thank you, Mr. President, for your zeal and
commitment to the East African Community (E.A.C.). The E.A.C. presents great
opportunities for people in this geographical area, but also for black people
everywhere. We need a super-state of sorts to serve as a pillar and center of
gravity for the black race, promoting Black people’s interests politically,
economically, militarily and diplomatically, while also expanding the frontiers
of freedoms. I may easily sound and pass-off like a Black Supremacist. But no, I
am not. I am simply urged by practical reality and necessity. The Whites have
the United States of America to speak for them; the Yellows (Chinese and other
look-alikes) now have China to look out for them. Who is there for Blacks? No
one! We cannot remain vulnerable like this. East Africans should be ready to play
the role of guaranteeing the strategic defence and security of all Blacks so
that we engage with other races from a point of strength – not weakness,
moreover perpetual.
3.
Background
“Even an ordinary man
has a part in the fate of his nation,” Tangu Wu, in the movie, The King Is
Invincible.
Mr. President, I was a Bar course student at the Law Development
Centre (L.D.C.) in the 2012/2013 academic year. I saw several loopholes in the design
and conduct of the course and witnessed intolerable abuse of power and
privilege by L.D.C.’s lecturers and officials. So, occasionally, I wrote
exposing these shortfalls and abuses and published my writings on noticeboards.
As a result, I was frequently ridiculed, insulted, intimidated and threatened
publicly with failure in examinations by L.D.C. lecturers, who placed power
before virtue. But I did not capitulate and continued writing. Just that:
writing. I put duty and justice before the fear of failure, for honour and
loyalty to my country because, as was said by Cynthia Addai-Robinson (as Queen
Regent Miriel), in the movie series, The
Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power, Season 1, Episode 8, at 35:07, “…
the way of The Faithful is committing to pay the price. Even if the cost cannot
be known. And trusting that, in the end, it will be worth it.”
Ultimately, I eventually failed the fourth and final term and was
dismissed from the course. I appealed internally against my results and
dismissal but my appeal was not heard. From then on, L.D.C. officials, led by
Mr. Othembi Frank, have firmly frustrated all possible attempts to resolve this
controversy. One wonders why they teach law if they do not want to follow and
implement it. I have since confirmed that L.D.C. officials interfered with my results, since the
official results they released conflict with my actual scored results.
That is how much they hate me. This brings to mind and indeed vindicates the French philosopher,
Voltaire, who, in The Age of Louis
XIV, said that,
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities
are wrong.” L.D.C. is a damned, wretched and God forsaken place that ruins
people’s lives and prospects!
Ultimately, in 2019, I sued L.D.C. in the High Court of Uganda for
violation of my fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. The case was tried
by Justice Elubu Michael, who dismissed it on technicality, with costs. I
appealed to the Court of Appeal against the whole of his decision. The appeal
is still pending there, as that court is yet to hear and determine it. But Justice
Elubu totally mismanaged my case in a manner and extent unbelievable and
unacceptable of a judge. It is precisely for this reason that I believe he is grossly
incompetent and should be removed from the office he holds and occupies.
4.
Guiding Considerations
“When a crime goes
unpunished, the world is unbalanced. When a wrong is unavenged, the heavens
look down on us in shame. … We will leave this record of our courage, so the
world will know who we were and what we did. … None of us knows how long he
shall live or when his time will come. But soon all that will be left of our
lives is the pride our children feel when they speak our names,” Hiroyuki
Sanada (as Oishi), in the movie, 47 Ronin.
The views expressed in this letter are guided by the following
considerations–
(i)
Justice is sacred and all
those who sit in judgment over others perform a sacrosanct duty. Therefore they
must carry and exude a sacred sense of justice. That job should be taken very
seriously and not be done perfunctorily (or working gadibe ngalye, as is said in Luganda, one of our local dialects).
(ii)
Justice is an indispensable
pillar of society. It is so important that no society or civilization can grow
and advance to greatness without it. A state or government that cannot deliver
justice to people it leads has no right to govern or preside over those people;
and the people are entitled to reject and resist such leaders through all legal
and socially acceptable ways. As Mark Twain said,
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government only
when it deserves it.”
(iii)
Judges are mandated to interpret and apply the law, but they have
no right to do so as they please. The
purpose of interpreting and applying the law is to achieve justice. Justice is
achieved when disputes and cases are resolved based on the inherent or
intrinsic aspirations of the relevant law, evidence available, good sense and
simple dictates of fairness like truth, decency and normative or moral
judgments of what is right or wrong. Even where they enjoy discretion, it
should be exercised judiciously – but not arbitrarily, without good basis.
(iv)
Losing a case is part and
parcel of justice. In litigation, there must be a winner and loser, one way or
the other. Even if it is a mediated settlement, there will inevitably be a
party who is found culpable – at least more at fault than the other – but the
parties negotiate and agree to let go of their claims against each other, give one
another benefits (even if undeserved) and cease hostilities, considering their
overarching mutual benefits like peace, harmony and reconciliation between them.
So, winning is not the only indicator of justice.
(v)
Judges (and indeed all other
judicial officers) are not perfect. As a matter of principle therefore, it is
to be expected and is actually alright for a judge to be wrong in his or her
interpretation and application of the law and legal principles. But this is
only valid and acceptable insofar as it applies to complicated and shady areas
of law – those that are generally still undergoing development. It does not
extend to common, simple, well settled and salutary rules of law. Otherwise
this will lead to condoning things like mediocrity and corruption. In this
letter, I shall prove that Justice Elubu Michael is guilty of misinterpreting
and misapplying straightforward laws and legal principles, for which reason he
is incompetent and unfit to continue serving as a judge.
(vi)
In a democratic society (which
our Constitution dictates Uganda should be) everyone is accountable under and
according to the law. Everyone answers to someone. Much as it is very important
for judges to enjoy independence and immunity, they must nevertheless be accountable,
within the law, for what they do and how they do it. This is particularly more
pertinent when they are found to have deliberately done wrong. Judicial independence
and immunity are not licences for wanton commission of wrongs or breach of law.
Accountability and independence are neither mutually exclusive nor corrosive of
each other. On the contrary, accountability reinforces independence by
eliminating tendencies of personal or external compromises to do wrong, thus ensuring
a sense of care and responsibility in decision making.
5.
The Incompetence of Justice Elubu Michael Exposed
“Truth vaccinates impunity,” Miguna Miguna,
in his book, Peeling Back the Mask (2012), at 332.
I contend that Justice Elubu Michael is incompetent and unfit to
continue serving as a judge, for misinterpreting and misapplying common,
simple, well settled and salutary rules of law that have been known, respected
and followed by all courts – some for hundreds of years. We are not talking
about new fields like crypto currencies, artificial intelligence or even space
science. No!
Mr. President, this letter is not intended to be a lecture in law
to you or anybody else. Nevertheless, for purposes of guidance and/or
clarification, I shall keep giving summarized positions of law on different
aspects addressed in the letter. Below is an analysis of how the Judge exhibited
incompetence in his unacceptable mishandling of my case before him.
5.1.
Accepting Inadmissible Hearsay Evidence
Hearsay evidence is testimony that a person cannot prove
independently, on his/her own knowledge. In other words, the person did not,
for example, see it himself, hear it first-hand himself or touch it himself. In
simple terms, hearsay evidence is gossip (lugambo).
Such evidence is generally not allowed in court. None of the few instances in
which it can be allowed is applicable in this case.
When I filed my case in court, I named the people who harassed me
at L.D.C. or were involved in the development of the case. None of them
appeared as witnesses to give evidence on behalf of L.D.C., clearly because the
case against them was very straightforward, strong and embarrassing. What they
did, they brought the Secretary, Mr. Didas Bakunzi Mufasha, a man who knew
nothing about the case, to testify on their behalf. Mr. Bakunzi never taught
me, was not complained against, never played any part in the development of
this case and in fact did not know me until I met him recently in 2018 while
serving him (in his capacity as secretary) letters that were part of
negotiations between myself and L.D.C.’s former Deputy Director geared towards
resolving this longstanding dispute amicably. Mr. Bakunzi was simply a stranger
to the case, who appeared as a witness to hoodwink court and help in subverting
justice. On this basis, I raised a preliminary objection to his affidavit,
quoted the relevant law and requested Justice Elubu Michael to strike (or
throw) it out of the record. A court is obliged to resolve preliminary objections
raised for its consideration.
But in his ruling, Justice Elubu did not resolve this objection!
He only said that I raised it, at page 6. A copy of that ruling is hereon
attached as “A” for ease of
reference. Justice Elubu did not resolve this preliminary objection for three
clear reasons: one, there was no room for him to maneuver and maintain L.D.C.’s
affidavit on court record, such that the safest course was to ignore the
objection; two, he needed to maintain the affidavit on record and thereafter
rely on the counter objections raised in it to dismiss my case; and three, to consequently
avoid the task of determining my case on its merits. Justice Elubu is a lazy
man.
 |
| [Note for the reader: this is the first page of the ruling of Justice Elubu Michael in my case before him. The ruling is too long (14 pages) to be scanned and attached here in its entirety. A copy is however definitely available on file with me. Contact me if you are interested in getting the complete ruling.] |
5.2. Condoning Non-Payment of Court Fees
L.D.C. did not pay court fees for its pleadings (the affidavit in
reply) in court, as required by law. I raised a preliminary objection on this
and requested Justice Elubu Michael to strike out or throw out L.D.C.’s affidavit,
as stated by law.
The law is that court fees must be paid before validly filing any
pleadings in court. If court fees are not paid, an application should be formally
made to the court seeking leave or permission to pay out of time. The court may
give more time to pay court fees, if it (court) has power to do so. Otherwise,
court should not consider documents for which court fees have not been paid. Other
judges respect and follow these rules, but Justice Elubu Michael totally
ignored them. To him, they probably counted for mere chicken shit.
In this case, L.D.C. did not pay court fees. They only paid the
fees at my prompting, only after I raised the matter. Had I not raised it, they
would not have paid the fees, thereby cheating government of its revenue.
Moreover, they did not bother applying for leave/permission to pay the fees out
of time. They paid at the last moment and brought a receipt of payment when
filing their submissions. In any case, paying at this very last stage would not
have been legally possible because it was way out of time since even their
affidavit had been filed on extended time. Justice Elubu allowed them to file a
reply late (out of time) although for me I vehemently objected to that
extension of time.
So, what did Justice Elubu do in his ruling? He displayed
mischievous cleverness by ratifying L.D.C.’s late payment of court fees.
Ulalalala…! How can a judge ratify late payment of court fees? Is he a
principal in the law firm that paid the fees late? I say this because in law,
ratification works in sofaras a principal accepts the actions of his/her servants
or subordinates. Anyway, there are three clear reasons why Justice Elubu did
this weird thing: one, there was ample room for him to maneuver and maintain
L.D.C.’s affidavit on court record, by twisting the law to serve their (him and
L.D.C.) mischief against me; two, he needed to maintain on court record L.D.C.’s
affidavit in reply by all means and thereafter rely on the counter objections
raised in it to dismiss my case; and three, to avoid the task of determining the
case on its merits. Mr. President, this is an unserious judge who should be
removed from our judiciary.
5.3.
Faking Res Judicata
After failing to properly resolve my preliminary objections,
Justice Elubu Michael proceeded to pretend to handle the case on its merits –
and boy-oh-boy, what a wondrous mess he makes of things! By so pretending, the Judge
was faking res judicata. This is a
doctrine or rule of law which says that once a case has been fully decided by an
authorized court, then that case cannot be entertained or handled again in that
court or any other court. The court’s decision is final. In the context of this
matter, the only way the decision can be challenged is by appealing against it to
a higher court.
Justice Elubu Michael faked res
judicata because in reality he did not dispose of my case on its merits.
All he did is simply pick on things but without exhausting them. For example, in
my letters to L.D.C. officials and indeed in my subsequent pleadings to court, I
demanded that L.D.C. produces minutes of its Appeals Committee that is said to
have met and determined my appeal against Bar course results. About 90% of the
case is based on this aspect. L.D.C. did not bring those minutes. Yet Justice
Elubu did not even talk about minutes anywhere in his poorly written and edited
ruling! At page 13 of the ruling, he simply said that I disputed information
that the Appeals Committee sat to hear and determine my appeal and that I said
the letter written to me communicating the results of the appeal was a forgery.
Yes, I did. But how and why? I disputed the genuineness of the letter by demanding
minutes of the Committee’s meeting to verify its contents and therefore
authenticate it. Why did Justice Elubu not address this crucial aspect of the
case? He should have found and held L.D.C. guilty of non-disclosure of material
documents and judged in my favour here. Anyway, me I know why he chose to
conveniently disregard this aspect: first, he did not want to catch his friends
and companions at L.D.C. whom he wanted to protect from liability and thereby ‘ensnare’
himself as well; and second, he wanted to hoodwink general readers of his
ruling to escape their scrutiny, since they do not know that I actually
demanded minutes of the Appeals Committee meeting. The interested public is
cheated of this information.
The reason why Justice Elubu Michael pretended to be deciding my
case fully on its merits was to prevent me from instituting another case in the
High Court, after rectifying any loopholes in the original one. This way, the
Judge legally and technically restricted me to appealing to the Court of
Appeal. I guess if it were possible, Justice Elubu would have also closed this
possibility. The other reason, as seen at pages 12 to 14 of his ruling, is that
he wanted an opportunity to do public relations for L.D.C. from his judicial
seat by showing that its examinations process is transparent and credible, contrary
to mine and other people’s accusations that the process is tampered with and students’
results falsified. This whitewashes his friends at L.D.C. of claims of
interference. There is sadism that unfortunately pervades our society today. As
if laziness and incompetence were not enough, Justice Elubu Michael is a very terrible
sadist!
5.4.
Making Wrong and Unfounded Assumptions
My case before Justice Elubu Michael was for enforcement of
fundamental and other human rights and freedoms. This is very clear from the
notice of motion which indicates that it is brought under article 50 of the
Constitution and rule 3 of the Judicature
(Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2008. Article
50 of the Constitution concerns enforcement
of rights and freedoms by courts. So, it is remarkable and strange that Justice
Elubu ended up guessing and assuming what I really wanted from him. At page 11
of his ruling, the Judge surmises that, “It would appear that the applicant
intended to apply for prerogative writs but chose to proceed under the
enforcement of Human Rights Rules. However if indeed it was prerogative orders
that he sought, the applicant was caught by the limitation of time.” The man is
not sure! It is funny.
Mr. President, in order to fully enjoy my guaranteed rights and
freedoms, I asked for consequential orders from Justice Elubu to the effect
that one, he issues an order prohibiting L.D.C. and/or its
agents from threatening, bullying, and intimidating me; two, he orders L.D.C.
to graduate me at the next available graduation ceremony, immediately after
judgment; three, he quashes and expunges from public records L.D.C.’s forged
letter, purporting to be a reply to my appeal against Bar course results of the
2012/2013 academic year; and four, alternatively, he orders L.D.C.’s Appeals Committee to meet unconditionally to hear and determine
my appeal. These are just consequential orders which effectuate the enjoyment
of rights and freedoms – and nothing more.
Yet quite shockingly, in a fantastic show of fertile imagination,
Justice Elubu said, at page 10 of his ruling, that these are prerogative writs
under judicial review! He said that I am asking for prohibition, mandamus and
certiorari. This Judge concluded, at the bottom of page 10, that, “None of
these prayers fall within the purview of the enforcement of human rights. These
specific prayers are clearly premised on judicial review although they are not
termed as such.” To an informed and competent mind, nothing can be further from
the truth than this because when specifically addressing this issue, I
emphatically told Justice Elubu Michael, at page 7 of my submissions in
rejoinder, as follows:
This is properly a cause for enforcement of fundamental and other
human rights and freedoms, seeking appropriate declarations and orders for
realizing the same.
The belief and insistence by LDC that I should have applied for
judicial review is erroneous because this is not properly a case for judicial
review, which presupposes that that there is a decision made by the relevant
body. In this cause, I contend that there was no decision made by LDC’s
Examination Appeals Committee, and so there is nothing to review. It is for LDC
to prove that there was indeed a decision made, by adducing minutes of the Committee’s
meeting – which it has failed to do. I cannot apply for judicial review simply
because LDC wishes so.
Sadly, Justice Elubu Michael ignored my clear and unambiguous plea
and sheepishly towed the line set by my oppressors at L.D.C. and ruled against
me, thanks to his sense of fertile imagination that created non-existent
things.
5.5.
Unlawfully Requiring Corroboration
I accused L.D.C. lecturers of abusing, bullying and threatening me
with failure in examinations, in open class. I adduced evidence of the writings
I wrote while still a student, revealing the names of the ringleaders of this
campaign and plot against me. None of the named abusive lecturers came to court
to deny my accusations. Mr. Didas Bakunzi Mufasha, who testified on behalf of L.D.C.,
did not in any way discredit my statements against the lecturers.
The law based on numerous court decisions and for a very long
time, both in Uganda and elsewhere in the common law system, is that in such
cases, the claim or accusation stands proved because it has simply not been
discredited. Nothing more is required or expected of the claimant to prove the assertions.
But quite shockingly, at page 13 of his ruling, Justice Elubu Michael
required me to corroborate my case against the lecturers with independent
evidence! He did not bother to explain why he departed with precedent/tradition
to make such an onerous demand of me. I wonder how much independence the Judge
requires of evidence that was not materially debunked at all. Corroboration, as
far as I understand it, is not a requirement in civil cases. My testimony was
enough. The Judge’s demand was therefore strange, ridiculous and unlawful, to
say the least.
5.6.
Subjecting Me to a Very High Standard of Proof
Justice Elubu Michael had before him a civil case or suit. In such
cases, the standard of proof required in law is balance of probabilities
or preponderance of evidence. This simply means that something is more
probable than not. In other words, that what is said to have happened most
likely happened as stated. It can be disproved only if the contrary is proved.
Justice Elubu subjected me to a very high standard of proof by,
first, unlawfully requiring me to corroborate my case against L.D.C. lecturers
and officials. Second, as if this was not bad enough, by demanding independent
accounts from me of things that only L.D.C. has and knows and then blaming me
for its (L.D.C.) people not coming to testify in court to defend themselves
against my claims about them. Wow! Wow! Wow!
In my pleadings and submissions before Justice Elubu, I stated
that the Academic Registrar of L.D.C., Mr. Everest Turyahikayo, told me that
the Appeals Committee did not hear and determine my appeal against Bar course
results. Mr. Turyahikayo was L.D.C.’s Academic Registrar by the time Justice
Elubu heard and determined the case, yet he (Mr. Turyahikayo) did not come to
court as a witness to deny my testimony, if at all what I said of him was false.
Yet at page 13 of his ruling, Justice Elubu blames me for Mr.
Turyahikayo’s not coming to court, saying that there is no independent account
to verify my assertion that he told me that the Appeals Committee did not hear
my appeal! Now, I wonder exactly what more independent account Justice Elubu
expected from me in these circumstances. I think common sense dictates that Mr.
Turyahikayo should have been the one to give an independent alternative account
to contradict mine. Short of this, my case stands proved because it means that
the truth of what I said is more probable than not. No sensible person can
blame me here. But it seems common sense is not common to Justice Elubu Michael
and so it was very easy for him to throw shame to the wind and blame me with a
straight face. In so doing, he subjected me to too high a standard of proof,
higher than the balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence.
5.7.
Not Appreciating Existence of Concurrent Remedies
Justice Elubu Michael erroneously assumed that I wanted judicial
review but disguised under human rights enforcement and concluded, at page 11
of his ruling, that, “The circumstances here are clearly that the two sets of
prayers can only be properly made pursuant to wholly divergent legal regimes
and rules.” Well, this shows that he does not appreciate or know that in law
there exists concurrent remedies, such that it is open to me, the litigant, to
choose which way, option or route to take.
Mr. President, there is no law that says a person cannot sue for
human rights enforcement simply because judicial review is or was an available
option. When the two remedies are possible, it is for me to choose which one to
take, under the doctrine of election. For me I chose long ago to sue L.D.C. for
human rights violations and not judicial review, because the former gave me
ample time (now 10 years limit) to fully investigate my case, unlike the latter
that is very time restrictive and constraining (three months limit). So,
Justice Elubu is not entitled to criticize and penalize me for choosing the
best option available to me.
Even then, for clarification’s sake, it should be noted that human
rights reliefs necessarily embody judicial review remedies due to the supremacy
of human rights that inevitably subsume judicial review remedies and the
special nature of applications for enforcing human rights. So, there is nothing
wrong in principle with granting prerogative writs in applications for
enforcement of human rights.
5.8.
Ignoring Law on Technicalities Being Immaterial
Your Excellency, the nature of case before Justice Elubu Michael
was a cause for enforcement of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.
Naturally, therefore, the case is governed by the Human Rights (Enforcement) Act, 2019, for which rules were made to be
implemented i.e. the Judicature
(Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure)
Rules, 2019. According to Justice Elubu, at page 10 of his ruling, these were
the proper rules governing my case. Section 6 (5) of the parent Act states very
clearly that, “No suit instituted under this Act shall be rejected or otherwise
dismissed by the competent court merely for failure to comply with any procedure,
form or on any technicality.” Yet the Judge ignored this law.
The stipulated procedure for cases of human rights enforcement is
motion on notice. There are two joint and inseparable documents used in this
procedure: a notice of motion and an affidavit supporting it. Principally, the
notice of motion states in brief the grounds upon which the case is based and prayers
or requests sought from court, while the affidavit narrates details of the case
as it progressed over time and presents evidence to prove that case.
This is what I did in my pleadings of the case before Justice
Elubu. But in my supporting affidavit, I substantiated the seven (7) main
prayers in the notice of motion, with more specific prayers or requests. For
example, in the notice of motion, I made a general prayer requesting Justice
Elubu to order L.D.C. to observe and respect my fundamental human rights and
freedoms. Then, in the affidavit, I substantiated this general prayer with
specific prayers on respecting my rights to fair hearing, fairness in
administrative decision making, education, etc. I also added there other
prayers like on general damages. The idea was to make a claim and then follow
it up with the necessary prayer or request to court.
Justice Elubu Michael took offence with this. At page 10 of his
ruling, he said that it is improper to lay out prayers in the affidavit,
reasoning that an affidavit states the evidence relied on and cannot properly
be utilized for making prayers. He therefore restricted himself to my main
prayers in the notice of motion. In other words, he rejected my substantiated
prayers in the affidavit. Mr. President, this is totally contrary to the law
under the Human Rights Enforcement Act. It is very absurd that a judge, whose
job it is to apply the law, disobeys the law.
But even before that Act was made, our courts had for many years built
jurisprudence or principles to the effect that shortfalls like those in my
affidavit cannot cause rejection or dismissal of such a case. The law as
established by the courts right from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal to the
High Court, for many years, is that only incorrect acts of the most fundamental
nature are null and void; that the administration of justice requires that the
substance of a dispute should be investigated and decided on the merits because
it is the substance, rather than the form, of an application which is material;
that error and lapses should not necessarily debar a litigant from the pursuit
of his rights; and that the basic principle is that the opposite party has been
notified of the claim or matter brought against it and has had an opportunity
to respond to and defend it. It is very unfortunate that in my case, Justice Elubu
Michael ignored and trashed the well nurtured forest of authorities in our
system and did his own things just to comfort and protect his buddies at L.D.C
from blame and liability.
In effect therefore, by stating that merely failing to comply with
any procedure, form or any technicality is immaterial in suits for enforcement
of fundamental and other human rights and freedoms, the Human Rights
Enforcement Act was simply codifying the longstanding principles that were laid
down by our courts. Even if it can be argued that the Act is a recent
legislation which Justice Elubu had probably not yet read, surely it cannot be
successfully argued that he also did not know the jurisprudence of the courts
he is part of. This points to only one thing: that Justice Elubu Michael is a
grossly incompetent judge.
5.9.
Failing to Distinguish Precedents
A precedent is a decision of court that is used to decide future
cases. In Luganda, this is expressed as, omusango
omukadde gusala omupya. It is good practice, for many reasons, for courts
to refer to earlier decisions for guidance on adjudicating disputes before
them. But there must be similarity between the present case under determination
and the earlier decided case. If they are different, then the earlier case
cannot be a precedent for the new case. The two must be distinguished. This is
known to even ordinary diploma in law students.
In my case before Justice Elubu Michael, the Judge heavily relied
on an earlier case to dismiss the case before him, as was done in the earlier one.
He relied on the case of Seguya Hillary Innocent Taylor (Acting
Through His Recognised Agent Male H. Mabirizi K. Kiwanuka) Versus Attorney
General of Uganda, Miscellaneous Cause No. 261 of 2019 (hereinafter “the Seguya case”). Now, the
question is: was the Seguya case a proper precedent for the case before
Justice Elubu? To answer this, we must look at and compare what was done in
that case and what was done in my case. The guiding consideration is whether
the two cases are similar or not. To draw distinction, one must look at two
things in the cases: one, the legal regimes that were invoked; and two, the way
remedies sought were phrased.
5.9.1. The Legal Regimes Invoked
In the Seguya case, from the ruling of
the trial judge, Hon. Mr. Justice Bashaija K. Andrew, other than the
Constitution, the applicant brought his application under two legal regimes at
the same time: the Judicature (Judicial Review) Rules 2009 (as amended) and the
Judicature (Fundamental and Other Human Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement
Procedure) Rules 2019.
In my case, again other than the
Constitution, I brought my application under one legal regime only: the Judicature
(Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) (Enforcement Procedure) Rules, 2008.
So, in this regard, from the perspective of the legal
regimes invoked, there is a clear-cut difference between the two applications.
5.9.2. The Way Remedies Sought Were Phrased
In the Seguya case, the applicant phrased his prayers to court as
follows:
1. A declaration that the decisions/actions of the President of
the Republic of Uganda, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, the Government of Uganda
Spokesperson, Ofwono Opondo, and the Uganda Police Force Director of Political
Commissariat, Assistant Inspector General of Police Asan Kasingye, to block the
Applicant through his twitter social media platform handle, @hillarytaylorvi,
from following, viewing, contacting, replying, Iiking, tagging and retweeting
the tweets on their twitter social media platform handles @KagutaMuneveni, @OfwonoOpondo
and @AKasingye, respectively, which handles are used as public forums to disseminate
information relating to the activities of their public offices in their
official capacities and to get feedback from citizens, are illegal,
procedurally improper, unreasonable and irrational.
2. An order of certiorari quashing the impugned decisions/actions of
the said public officials.
3. An order of prohibition prohibiting the said public officials
from any further blocking of the Applicant, through his said twitter social media
platform.
4. General damages.
5. Costs of this application.
In the alternative to the above;
6. A declarations that the impugned decisions/actions of the said public
officials, infringe on the Applicant's right against discrimination, guaranteed
under Article 21, freedom of speech and expression, freedom of thought,
conscience and belief guaranteed under Article 29, the Applicant's right to
participate in the affairs of Government and in peaceful activities to
influence the policies of Government guaranteed under Article 38, the Applicant's
right to access to information possession of the state/Government guaranteed
under Article 9, the Applicant's right to just and fair treatment in
administrative decisions guaranteed under Article 42; amount to political
persecution of the Applicant and beyond what is acceptable and demonstrably
justifiable in a free and democratic society, prohibited by Article 43(2) of
the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda.
7. A permanent injunction restraining said public officials from further
committing the impugned acts, general damages for inconveniences caused and
costs of this application.
In my case, the way I phrased my remedies sought can be seen in
the ruling of Justice Elubu Michael, at page 9. But in order not to
procrastinate reading, let me reproduce them here as well, since we are doing
comparison:
1.
The Respondent observes and respects
the Applicant’s fundamental human rights and freedoms, in accordance with the
Constitution;
2.
An order prohibiting the Respondent
and/or its agents from threatening, bullying, and intimidating the Applicant.
3.
The Respondent graduates the Applicant,
at the next available graduation ceremony, immediately after judgment;
4.
The Respondent’s forged letter,
purporting to be a reply to the Applicant’s appeal against Bar course results
of the 2012/2013 academic year, be quashed and expunged from public records;
5.
In the alternative, but without
prejudice to paragraph 3 above, the
Respondent’s Appeals Committee meets unconditionally to hear and determine the
Applicant’s appeal, justly and fairly;
6.
The Respondent compensates
the Applicant for specified money lost, pays damages, and interest, as a result
of the Respondent’s wrongdoing; and
7.
This court makes such other
orders it may deem fit, for the achievement of the ends of justice.
Again, there is a clear-cut difference in the two applications
from the perspective of remedies sought. While in the Seguya case distinct
judicial review remedies are sought alongside distinct human rights enforcement
remedies in one application, in my case only consequential human rights
enforcement remedies are sought in the application. I did not combine or
comingle the two procedures.
Therefore, in all respects, the two cases are so different that
one cannot be a precedent for the other. In the Seguya case, Justice Bashaija
K. Andrew held that the applicant’s application was a fatally defective omnibus
application that cannot be sustained and accordingly dismissed it with costs.
To a competent mind, the question is why that application was deemed omnibus and
the case dismissed; and the answer is because it was brought under two wholly
divergent legal regimes at the same time and the prayers sought are disjointed
in nature. This renders the application omnibus. Disjointedness denies the
prayers the essential character of being consequential. That is it. Very
simple! Justice Bashaija used colourful and flowery language in analyzing
issues in his ruling that is interesting and pleasant to read. Justice Elubu Michael
was so excited and swept off his feet by the language that he sheepishly
followed the Seguya case without independent analysis and reasoning of his own.
Mr. President, it is very unfortunate that a judge decides cases out of sheer
excitement.
When one sees Justice Elubu belabouring to discuss the differences
between judicial review and human rights enforcement, at page 11 of his ruling,
in a bid to justify dismissal of my case, one may think that he is very
intelligent. No! Not at all! He is just a copycat who simply copied and pasted findings
and holdings from an earlier ruling of another serious and competent judge.
5.10.
Ignoring Context of and Misinterpreting Documents
Mr. President, reconciliation is very important in every society. In
any dispute, the people involved must reach a point in time when they
necessarily agree to reconcile, resolve the conflict, bury the hatchet and move
on peacefully. In Uganda, this is so important that article 126 (2) (d) of our
Constitution says that in exercise of
judicial power, the courts should promote reconciliation between parties,
in adjudicating cases of both a civil and criminal nature.
It is in this spirit and context that the former Deputy Director
of L.D.C. (also doubling as Head of Academics), Mrs. Nakacwa Florence Dollo and
I embarked on negotiations to end the impasse between us concerning the disputed
Bar course examination results. Madam Nakacwa advised me to write a letter to
management, through her, calling for review of my results and hear my appeal. In
the letter, as in the appeal, I requested to repeat a subject called Civil Proceedings
that I thought I failed. I wrote and delivered the letter on Monday, 9th
July, 2018. She went to consult her colleagues and got back to me over one
month later, advising me to write to the Chairperson of the Management Committee,
through the Director, Mr. Frank Othembi, requesting to repeat all the four
subjects that, according to them, I failed in fourth term. She reasoned that
doing this would avoid controversies and the need for hectic investigations and
processes of determining my appeal, since all I would have to do is re-sit the
papers I failed and go away. This presented a promise of overturning my
dismissal. So, I wrote and delivered the letter on 20 August 2018. I was very excited
and hopeful that L.D.C. would finally reconsider my matter and give me justice.
In November 2018, the Deputy Director called me to her office. She told me that
my request was rejected and showed me a note by the Director, Mr. Frank
Othembi, saying that I failed the Bar course and should sit for pre-entry exams
to be admitted afresh to re-do the course! This was very disappointing.
Justice Elubu Michael ignored all this underlying context of my
letters and completely misinterpreted them, to suit his biased inclination in
the case. At page 14 of his ruling, he superficially concluded that by these
letters, I admitted failing exams, contradicted myself and lowered the
probative value of my evidence. Then he kept saying (as if to emphasize) that
he notes that prior to writing these letters, I consistently insisted that I
passed all my papers. All these are not true! Actually, all along I thought and
maintained that I had failed Civil Proceedings. Fortunately, after these failed
negotiations, a sympathetic insider tipped me off that I actually passed all my
subjects and gave me my actual results indicating that I passed the Bar course
outright. This was when I served L.D.C. with a notice of intention to sue. The
insider did this for me out of admiration for my commitment and determination
to fight on relentlessly.
Moreover, had Justice Elubu Michael been smart enough
intellectually, he would have realized that my case remains valid in spite of these
letters. If for example, L.D.C. violated my right to a fair hearing by not
hearing my appeal against Bar course results, the right remains violated even
if I later on wrote a letter requesting to sit failed exams, in a
reconciliation exercise. The letter does not correct or undo the wrongs originally
done by L.D.C. So, the purpose of me presenting these letters in the case is to
basically show the gravity of the wrongs done. But they cannot be used as a
weapon against me. Only a quack can think so. Plus, had Justice Elubu Michael been
competent enough in law, he would have realized that these letters point to
other legal doctrines like legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. By
these principles, L.D.C. cannot be permitted to indulge or take me on a path of
reconciliation and then later use my compromises to turn against me. The law
shuns and prevents dishonest dealings.
6.
Why Justice Elubu Michael Misconducted Himself
“Talent without ethics;
skill without values; and knowledge without conscience are the greatest curse
that can ever befall an individual, society or nation,” Chief Justice Dr. Willy
Mutunga.
I was shocked and alarmed by the glaring and pervasive errors and
inadequacies in the ruling of Justice Elubu Michael. Then I remembered threats
issued to me by L.D.C.’s lecturers to the effect that I would not get
favourable judgments in courts since lecturers and judges have networks that
would ensure that it is impossible for me to win cases before them when I am in
practise.
I suspected foul play and embarked on inquiring for possible connections between Justice Elubu and L.D.C. officials. I discovered that the Judge was a Makerere University, Faculty of Law classmate and 1992 co-graduand of L.D.C.’s director, Mr. Othembi Frank, a man under whose leadership and watch I was maliciously failed; and who has continuously played a critical role in frustrating efforts to amicably resolve my outstanding dispute with his institution. Justice Elubu and Mr. Othembi are still close friends up to this day. A copy of the graduation list is hereon attached as “B” for your reference.
Then, Justice Elubu is a university contemporary and friend of other officials of L.D.C, who are complained against in my cause for harassing me while still a student there and causing my fictitious failure in Bar course examinations. They are still close associates up to this day.
Justice Elubu was influenced by his good friendship and close
association with Mr. Frank Othembi and his co-employees at L.D.C. to decide my
case in a manner biased against me. The Judge purely acted as a hired
mercenary, ignored the evidence presented to him and decided the case on basis
of technical know-who to save the careers and reputation of his friends and
associates in L.D.C.’s employment.
7.
Appeals/Requests/Proposals
“… let justice flow
like a stream and righteousness like a river that never goes dry,” the Bible,
Amos 5:24.
Mr. President, this letter is principally addressed to you. But it
also raises other matters that are more context-specific and therefore fall
under particular domains of Government. Thus, the letter is copied to different
stakeholders for their due consideration and input. Nevertheless, there should
be no Great Wall of China in the appeals, requests and proposals made, such
that nothing prevents one addressee from taking up recommendations made to
another addressee.
7.1.
H.E. the President
Your Excellency, the cardinal duty of a court of law is to do
justice. But the truth of the matter is that Justice Elubu Michael did the
exact opposite in my case before him. He caused a traversity and mockery of
justice. What Justice Elubu signed off and issued on 5 February 2022 was not a
judicial ruling, properly called. Rather, it was simply a heap of rubbish! Only
an incompetent judge can deliver such garbage to litigants seeking court
assistance. Justice Elubu Michael is very incompetent as well demonstrated in
segment 5 above.
He abused the process and sanctity of court. He gave meaning to
the common belief and adage in Uganda that a poor man cannot win a case (Omwavu tawangula musango). Justice Elubu
Michael is a crook, morally corrupt man, intellectually bankrupt and an unmitigated
disaster in the judiciary. He should be held responsible and accountable for
his wrongs. His mismanagement of my case forced me to appeal against his
decision to the Court of Appeal, which caused me to sell off almost all things
in my house in order to raise money to fund the appeal. I even sold off my bed
and I am now sleeping on the floor. Can you imagine, Mr. President? I believe
this is what other thousands of your citizens are going through as they seek
justice in courts in this country that you are leading. I am just an example
who has boldly come out to reveal this plight. I hope my sacrifice will help
the many others out there who are suffering silently, through meaningful system
reforms.
Mr. President, there is a big problem in the Judiciary that you,
as Head of State and Government, should help resolve, because it matters who
administers justice. On this note, as a starting point, I therefore once again reiterate
my call and request that you be pleased to invoke your authority and prerogative
to cause the investigation and removal from office of Justice Elubu Michael for
incompetence, in accordance with our Constitution and other laws. Let him serve
as an example for other wrongdoers in our court system.
Finally, Your Excellency, allow me inform you that controversies
surrounding L.D.C. are longstanding and persistent. I believe you have received
many complaints and concerns about it. It is high time this matter is put to
rest once and for all. I have therefore devised a workable plan in a proposed
Bill for Parliament to pass into law, geared towards breaking the monopoly of
L.D.C. over the Bar course, by devolving the course to universities. We
actually do not need L.D.C. at all. A copy of the proposed Bill is hereon
attached as “C” for your perusal. [Note
for the reader: a copy of the Bill is available online here - https://huntedthinker.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-legal-education-and-training-bill.html]
Mr. President, this is indigenous thought that should be promoted – African
solutions for African problems, indeed. Hopefully we shall meet one day and
discuss my proposed Bill. I believe this plan will solve the L.D.C. menace.
Actually, had there been an alternative, I would have left L.D.C. alone long
ago and enrolled elsewhere. But I am stuck, with no other place to go to! My
plan will therefore create viable and cost effective options in Uganda, enhance
the quality of legal education, save scarce resources and reduce schooling time
for students, among other benefits. This is very timely now when Government is restructuring
its agencies to avoid irrelevance and duplication.
7.2.
The Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament
Madam Speaker, I came to Parliament requesting for the C.V. of
Justice Elubu Michael but was told that you do not have it. I wanted it for
purposes of ascertaining Justice Elubu’s previous connections with L.D.C.
officials. I expected to find the C.V. there because since Parliament is the
one that vets and approves judges’ appointments, they therefore leave with you copies
of their C.V.s to keep in your archives. It is very important that Parliament
keeps records of those it vets. Black Africans have lost their rich legacy and
heritage to humanity largely because our ancestors did not keep records. For
example, the longest reigning monarch in history was a Black Egyptian Pharaoh called
Pepi II who reigned for 90 years, yet distorters and deniers of black
civilization falsely claim that the longest reigning monarch was a French king
who reigned for 74 years. This is not true. But because information about Pepi
II’s reign is scanty, while that of the French king is in plenty, this common lie
easily passes for truth. Government institutions like yours should lead our
people in building a culture of astute record keeping.
That aside, through you, Madam Speaker, I call upon Parliament in
general and legislators individually to support my plan for breaking L.D.C.’s
monopoly by devolving the teaching of the Bar course to universities, for
reasons given in segment 7.1 above, but also as stated in the memorandum to my
proposed Bill, a copy of which is hereon attached as “C” for your perusal. From my interactions with some M.P.s, I find
that they think that just because there is no other known country in the world
where Bar course training is devolved to universities, it therefore cannot be
done in Uganda. I think this is an indicator of low self-esteem. There are
pioneers in everything. We can be the first to do this and the rest of the
world learns from us. Why not? Therefore, Madam Speaker, I request you and
Parliament to please support this local content. I shall be glad to meet you
for further discussions on this proposed Bill, if it pleases you.
7.3.
His Lordship the Chief Justice
My Lord, Magistrates Courts and High Court are grossly and
wantonly abusing the appeals process, using the availability of this mechanism
to do substandard work themselves, hoping that upper courts will rectify their
intentional errors. Indeed, in another case I am pursuing in the High Court,
the trial judge (name withheld) told me, “Why don’t I just dismiss your case
and you appeal?” even before reading through my file to ascertain the case’s merits.
As you are making serious commendable efforts not only to eliminate case
backlog in the judicial system but also to shorten the time leads for case
disposal, some in your ranks are merely chasing statistics to catch up, at the
expense of substantive and meaningful justice, so that it is said that in
such-and-such a time, Justice so-and-so disposed of such number of cases and so
he or she is doing a good job. But the decisions they render are hollow in
analysis, shallow in reasoning and narrow in jurisprudential value, yet inevitably
have far reaching implications. But let me be very clear: this is just
generalization and is therefore not intended to be a blanket dismissal of the
really fantastic job done by many judges and magistrates. I appreciate their
good works. May God bless them abundantly. So, this is not an indictment of all
and sundry on those levels of the Bench.
Your Lordship, abuse of the appeals process poses grave challenges
and implications that are not good for the administration of justice. For instance,
one, it stirs personal and public dissatisfaction and grievances, thereby
undermining confidence in the Judiciary; and two, it definitely consumes
excessive resources as those served with substandard decisions seek redress to
higher courts. This causes unnecessary circulation of cases in the system,
leading to lengthy and costly litigation. To me, this is also an element of
case backlog because, to my mind, backlog should not just be the technical
understanding of a case remaining undisposed for two years and above. If, for
example, Justice Elubu Michael had done his job to expectations in my case,
there would most likely be no need for appealing to the Court of Appeal; and certainly
I would not be as angry and disappointed as I evidently am. But now the Court
of Appeal has to hear the case and either determine it on its merits (as
requested) or revert the file back to the High Court for fresh determination. Then
the Justices or Judge concerned will end up spending resources (time and money)
and energy that would have otherwise been saved, had the original duty bearer,
Justice Elubu, done his job well. For me, the litigant, this means more expenses
and suffering as I wait for justice to be done. I think the Judiciary should seriously
look into this issue and devise ways and means of combating it.
Finally, focusing more specifically on my case before Justice
Elubu Michael, I am informed that judges have research assistants; and so,
Justice Elubu must also have had an assistant. How can it be that both the Judge
and his assistant could be terribly wrong on common, simple, well settled and
salutary rules of law? Did Justice Elubu Michael consult his assistant? If he
did and the assistant gave him this legal advice, then that assistant should be
fired. But even if the Judge was misled by the assistant, he (Judge) remains
the primary duty bearer, whose endorsement, name and signature the decision carries,
at the end of the day. He is still to blame and bears all the natural and
probable consequences for issuing an extremely erroneous decision.
7.4.
The Chairperson, Judicial Service Commission
I came to the Judicial Service Commission (J.S.C.) requesting for
the C.V. of Justice Elubu Michael, but it was denied to me. As you are aware, Justice
Elubu's C.V. is now a public document, by reason of its having been submitted
to the Judicial Service Commission and Parliament during the appointment
process. So it should have been easy for you to give it to me on this account.
But after tossing me around for long, with false claims that my
letter requesting for the Judge’s C.V. was essentially a discipline issue, I
gave up and stopped coming. Later on, I received, via email, a letter in reply
saying that you do not have his C.V. I only wanted it to find Justice Elubu’s
university and year of graduation so that I confirm if indeed he has prior
connections to L.D.C. officials, in my pursuit of justice. The J.S.C. would not
lose anything if you gave me the Judge’s C.V.
But your refusal and denial had deep eye-opening and mind-blowing revelations
for me. I think J.S.C. is not confident of the people it identifies and
recommends to H.E. the President for appointment. So you end up nominating
quacks and mediocres like Justice Elubu Michael. To this extent, the J.S.C. is
itself incompetent. You should pull up your socks. I have also since found out
that Justice Elubu was an employee of J.S.C. before being appointed Judge of
the High Court. So you were just protecting your own from deserved scrutiny. The
President and Parliament should be more careful with your recommendations.
7.5.
Justice Elubu Michael
I call upon (and indeed advise) Justice Elubu Michael to
honourably resign and save the country unnecessary expenses and burden of
investigating and removing a judge from office. This job is clearly not for you
because you are not up to the task. Even calling you “Justice” is really a
contradiction in terms. In fact, I feel embarrassed addressing you as “My Lord”
or “Your Lordship.” Go and first learn the law and legal principles well enough
to adjudicate cases; or better still, find other things outside adjudication
that you can manage well. Your immediate exit from the Judiciary will be good
riddance.
7.6.
The President, Uganda Law Society
Lawyers trade in the rule of law. Without it, they have no business
or relevance in society. So when the rule of law is threatened or compromised,
that poses an existential threat to the legal fraternity. But rule of law starts
and thrives on fidelity or faithfulness to the law, which Justice Elubu Michael
disregarded in my case. Therefore, lawyers must get truly concerned and do
everything in their power to safeguard their trade, as a matter of
self-preservation.
Through you, Sir, I therefore call upon and challenge the Uganda
Law Society (U.L.S.), at the individual and collective level, to pick keen
interest in all the critical matters raised in this letter. Your members are
the immediate day-to-day users and consumers of court services. Do not reduce
yourselves to mere convenient tools for use in the court machinery. That only relegates
you to the periphery of court systems. Moreover, U.L.S. is a catchment area – a
pool – from which future judicial officers, including judges, are obtained. Recalling
the words of Dante that, “The hottest place in hell is
reserved for those who remain neutral in times of moral crisis,” it is
important that U.L.S. emphasizes, entrenches and protects safeguards designed
to prevent future abuse and avoid abusers of processes such as was done in my
case. The collapse of the rule of law marks the collapse of all of us.
7.7.
The General Public
I call upon Ugandans to take these matters seriously for the good
of our country. Brainstorm and devise solutions in organized groups like
professional bodies, think tanks, civil society organizations, political
parties, religious and cultural institutions, media houses, education centres and
so forth. Be bold, brave and courageous. Your country depends on it.
For God and my country,
Bakampa Brian Baryaguma
Mobile: 0753124713 /
0772748300.
Email: bakampasenior@gmail.com.
Web.: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.ug.
c.c.: (i) Rt. Hon. Speaker of Parliament
(ii) His Lordship the Chief Justice
(iii)
Rt. Hon. Prime Minister
(iv)
Rt. Hon. Leader of Opposition in
Parliament
(v)
Hon. Minister of Justice and
Constitutional Affairs
(vi)
Chairperson, Judicial Service Commission
(vii)
Justice Elubu Michael
(viii) President, Uganda Law Society
