BAKAMPA BRIAN BARYAGUMA
MOBILE: +256753124713 / +256772748300;
EMAIL: bakampasenior@gmail.com;
WEB: www.huntedthinker.blogspot.com;
Kampala, Uganda.
–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Monday, 23rd 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,
7th 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, 7th 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, 17th 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, 8th 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, 22nd 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, 6th 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, 22nd 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, 21st
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,
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
No comments:
Post a Comment