Judiciary accused of politicking over controversial service award ruling

Legal experts are examining whether the Judiciary's involvement was driven by political motives rather than purely legal grounds.

The Judiciary continues to crawl under scrutiny from legal experts over the timing and handling of a recent court ruling that cleared former Leader of the Opposition Mathias Mpuuga and three parliamentary backbench commissioners of any wrongdoing in awarding themselves a service award.

The decision, delivered just two-and-a-half-months after the case was filed on May 23, 2024, has raised questions about whether judicial processes were used to settle a political dispute.

The ruling was issued on August 12, 2024, during the judiciary's court vacation—a period when civil matters are typically not heard unless deemed urgent and supported by a certificate of urgency.

The expedited handling of the case has raised concerns, with critics suggesting that the Judiciary may have given preferential treatment.

"The timing of the ruling does not pass the smell test," said lawyer Jude Byamukama.

"While it's good practice to resolve cases promptly, one must question why this matter received such expedited attention, especially when other cases before the same judge remain unresolved."

Mr Byamukama highlighted the case of Margaret Natabi vs Makerere University, filed before the same judge, Douglas Karekona Singiza, in April 2023, which has yet to receive a ruling despite being on the docket for over a year.

The case, filed by private citizen Daniel Daniel, challenged the legality of the parliamentary service award, which saw the four commissioners awarding themselves money, sparking public outcry and a censure motion in parliament.

Legal experts are now examining whether the Judiciary's involvement was driven by political motives rather than purely legal grounds.

"It's hard to ignore the coincidences," remarked legal analyst Nicholas Opiyo.

"The court's order and parliamentary events seemed to align perfectly, casting doubt on the judiciary's impartiality. It raises suspicions that both bodies might be working towards a common objective."

Criticism also extended to the Speaker of Parliament, who was accused of delaying the inclusion of the matter on the order paper for discussion until the last possible day within the required 14-day window.

This has led some to argue that, whether by commission or omission, the judiciary has inadvertently positioned itself at the centre of a political debate.

Legal experts continue to demand explanations from the judiciary on why this case was handled at what they describe as "supersonic speed."

They argue that the court's actions have further fuelled public suspicion that judicial processes are being used to resolve political issues rather than upholding legal integrity.

The judiciary has yet to respond to these allegations, but the controversy underscores the delicate balance between law and politics in Uganda.

Legal minds are calling for a closer examination of how judicial decisions intersect with political interests.

As this debate unfolds, all eyes remain on the judiciary for answers that could either dispel or confirm the growing public scepticism.