The Uganda Law Society has issued a sharp rebuke against High Court Judge Rosette Comfort Kania for her decision to deny bail to opposition leader Dr. Kizza Besigye and Hajji Obeid Lutale. In a strongly worded statement, the legal body called the ruling fundamentally flawed and potentially impeachable, arguing it violated established legal principles without proper justification.

The controversy stems from Judge Kania’s April 11 bail ruling where she refused to release the two accused persons despite them meeting all bail requirements. Her reasoning suggested the accused might interfere with investigations given the serious nature of their charges. The Uganda Law Society dismissed this justification as “unacceptably paternalistic,” particularly the judge’s claim that detention was somehow in the accused’s best interest to prevent them from “falling prey to the temptation” of interfering with the case.

Asiimwe Anthony, Vice President of the Uganda Law Society, warned that such judicial overreach threatens the very foundation of justice. “When judges step outside the law, it fractures the foundation upon which society stands, compromising justice and public trust,” Asiimwe stated. The legal body referenced several key cases including Uganda (DPP) v Col (Rtd) Dr Kiiza Besigye and Attorney General v Tumushabe to demonstrate how Judge Kania’s decision departed from legal precedent.

The Law Society made clear that while judges have discretion, it must be exercised within legal boundaries. Asiimwe announced plans to bring Judge Kania before the Judicial Service Commission to answer for her actions under Executive Order RNB No 2 of 2024. Meanwhile, they urged Besigye’s legal team to immediately file a fresh bail application before the head of the Criminal Division to correct what they see as a miscarriage of justice.

The statement also addressed broader concerns about judicial delays in Uganda’s court system. The Law Society called on the Civil Division of the High Court to urgently handle several pending cases, including a stay of execution application by President Isaac Ssemakadde and a habeas corpus petition for Advocate Eron Kiiza. “Justice delayed is justice denied,” Asiimwe emphasized, highlighting how court backlogs undermine public confidence in the legal system.

This rare public condemnation from Uganda’s legal professionals spotlights growing tensions around judicial independence in the country. Legal experts note the Law Society’s strong stance reflects concerns about political influence on the courts, particularly in high-profile opposition cases. The Besigye case has drawn international attention, with human rights groups closely watching how Uganda’s judiciary handles the matter.

The Uganda Law Society’s intervention could have far-reaching consequences. By threatening disciplinary action against a sitting judge, the legal body has drawn a clear line in the sand regarding judicial accountability. Their reference to specific cases and legal principles suggests they are prepared for a prolonged battle to defend what they see as proper judicial conduct.

As the situation develops, all eyes remain on whether the Judicial Service Commission will take up the matter and how the courts will respond to the growing criticism. The outcome could set important precedents for judicial independence and the right to bail in Uganda’s legal system. For now, the Law Society’s bold stance has reignited crucial debates about the balance between judicial discretion and legal accountability in Uganda’s democracy.

Legal analysts suggest this case may become a watershed moment for Uganda’s judiciary. With the Law Society taking such a public position, pressure is mounting on the court system to demonstrate its independence and commitment to fair legal processes. The coming weeks will reveal whether this controversy leads to meaningful reforms or deeper divisions within Uganda’s legal community.

The Uganda Law Society’s actions underscore the vital role professional legal bodies play in safeguarding judicial integrity. Their willingness to challenge a High Court judge’s decision demonstrates their commitment to upholding the rule of law, even when it means confronting powerful institutions. As this case continues to unfold, it serves as a crucial test case for judicial accountability and the protection of fundamental rights in Uganda’s evolving legal landscape.