A lawyer, Simon Peter Esomu, and remanded journalist Arnold Anthony Mukose have petitioned the High Court seeking to overturn a directive banning video recording inside Kawempe Magistrate’s Court.
The two argue that the ban violates constitutional principles of open justice and press freedom.
In their judicial review application filed against the Attorney General of Uganda, the applicants challenge an order issued on March 27 by Grade One Magistrate Christine Nantege. The directive barred cameras from proceedings in Criminal Case No. 590 of 2025, involving 21 supporters of the National Unity Platform (NUP).
Esomu and Mukose contend that the order was issued without hearing the media or the public, rendering it procedurally unfair.
Mukose, a reporter with Alternative Digitalk, states in an affidavit that he had gone to court to livestream the proceedings but was blocked by both the court order and security personnel.
“I was prevented by the court order and security from using my camera,” he said.
Esomu argues that the blanket prohibition effectively shuts the public out of the proceedings.
“It amounts to a closure of the court to the public eye,” he states in court documents.
The applicants further contend that the directive is illegal, irrational, and disproportionate, noting that no evidence was presented to show that cameras posed a threat to witnesses, national security, or the administration of justice.
The case before the lower court involves several NUP supporters, including the party’s deputy spokesperson Alex Waiswa Mufumbiro and security aide Edward Ssebuufu, who are facing charges related to alleged illegal military drilling. The proceedings have attracted significant public interest.
The applicants argue that in the digital era, real-time visual coverage is critical to ensuring transparency and maintaining public confidence, particularly in high-profile political cases.
They are asking the High Court to declare the magistrate’s directive ultra vires, quash the order, and allow video recording under reasonable guidelines to preserve courtroom decorum.
The case is expected to test how Uganda’s judiciary balances its authority to regulate court proceedings with the constitutional requirement that justice must not only be done, but also be seen to be done.
