The arrest warrant for Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde has raised serious questions about the motivations behind his prosecution.
Issued by the Buganda Road Chief Magistrates Court, the order directs Interpol to locate Ssemakadde and return him to Uganda to stand trial.
The charge? Insulting the modesty of Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Jane Frances Abodo—a case stemming from remarks he allegedly made during a political symposium in November 2024.
Ssemakadde reportedly referred to Abodo in an offensive manner, sparking outrage and legal action.
Private prosecutors argue that his words were not just inappropriate but outright obscene.
Despite multiple summonses, Ssemakadde has not appeared in court, choosing instead to challenge the case in the High Court.
His legal team, led by Derrick Bazekuketta, maintains that his absence does not indicate guilt, noting that his lawyers have represented him at all hearings.
However, Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi dismissed this defense, emphasizing the necessity of personal appearance in criminal cases.
As authorities intensify efforts to enforce the arrest warrant, questions persist about the broader implications of this legal battle.
Some argue that Ssemakadde is being unfairly targeted, while others insist he must be held accountable.
Ssemakadde has previously clashed with the judiciary.
Earlier this year, he was convicted of contempt of court after criticizing Justice Musa Ssekaana’s decision to block the ULS annual general meeting, where new Judicial Service Commission representatives were to be elected.
Critics saw this ruling as part of an ongoing feud between the two, dating back to 2022 when Ssemakadde made controversial remarks about Ssekaana.
The fact that Ssekaana both presided over the case and was the complainant raised concerns about judicial impartiality.
Now, with a fresh warrant against him, suspicions of political maneuvering have resurfaced. Ssemakadde’s outspoken nature and vocal criticism of government practices have earned him both admiration and enemies.
His supporters argue that the case against him is an attempt to silence him and weaken his influence in the legal fraternity.
Others contend that his remarks about the DPP were inflammatory and that his refusal to appear in court suggests an attempt to evade justice.
The case raises deeper concerns about judicial independence and the use of legal mechanisms for political purposes.
If Ssemakadde’s prosecution is indeed politically motivated, it would set a dangerous precedent for free speech and accountability in Uganda.
On the other hand, if the charges are legitimate, then due process must be followed without bias or interference.
As legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case will likely have far-reaching implications for Uganda’s legal and political landscape.
Whether Ssemakadde is being persecuted or facing rightful consequences, one thing is clear: this case is about more than just a single individual—it is a test of the rule of law.