By Spy Uganda
Serena Kigo: Working on a tip off, our Spy Chief was one of the journalists that suddenly surfaced at Serena Hotel Kigo uninvited, to the disgust of the Chief Justice, Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo and the organizers of the disciplinary hearing session, the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) aimed at ironing out the impasse between Dollo and Esther Kisakye.
The hearing was supposed to be a top secret and out of bounds for media, because according to our insider Spy, the hearing was likely to have some outbursts from both sides, given the fact that the commission wanted to pin the Chief Justice to explain how he obtained the 2021 presidential ruling from Supreme Court Justice, Esther Mayambala Kisaakye yet she didn’t give it to him officially. That way, they expected some crossfire, also given Kisaakye’s persona as a bold justice, who has taken the bull by its horn. That’s the reason they wanted to work in silence to the extent of even running out of Kampala to a hideout at Serena Kigo.
However, this couldn’t happen as our ever-alert Spy burst them and attended uninvited, among other few journalists including, Steven Otage from Daily Monitor and Moses Kidandi from Capital Radio.
After seeing a bee hive of Journalists eager to know what was happening inside, Dollo had no option but to swiftly match out of the meeting escorted by the Chairman JSC, Justice Benjamin Kabiito. A few minutes later, Justice Kisaakye also got out escorted by her lawyer Peter Walubiri.
Background Of Kisaakye-Dollo Fall Out
The bad blood between Kisaakye and Dollo came to the limelight in March 2021 during the hearing of a presidential petition filed by National Unity Platform (NUP) former presidential candidate Robert Kyagulanyi, popularly known as Bobi Wine, who was challenging President Museveni’s victory.
The eight justices – Chibita, Percy Tuhaise, Owiny-Dollo, Stella Arach-Amoko, Faith Mwondha, Rubby Aweri-Opio and Ezekiel Muhanguzi – gave one ruling explaining the reasons why they had rejected two of Kyagulanyi’s applications, in which he sought to amend his petition, and also one in which he wanted his more than 200 additional affidavits allowed out of time.
When the eight were done reading their combined ruling, it was Justice Kisaakye’s turn to read her “dissenting ruling”, but Justice Owiny-Dollo first asked for a short break which turned into a long break. Later, Kisaakye came back to deliver her ruling just inked on papers and explained that during the short-turned-long break, CJ Dollo had forcefully used police officers to confiscate her file containing her full ruling.
Since the above incident happened, Kisaakye has been accusing the Chief Justice and other top judicial officers of taking her through all sorts of mistreatment including withholding her salary and denying her work, among others.
In fact, Kisaakye has since sued Dollo jointly with Dr Pius Bigirimana the permanent secretary to the judiciary, Sarah Langa Siu the Chief Registrar of Courts of Judicature, Apophia Tumwine the Commissioner of Human Resources Judiciary, the Judicial Service Commission and the Attorney General.
She accuses the respondents to have jointly and consistently engaged in acts that are inconsistent with the constitution among them including; failure to recognize and or follow seniority at the Supreme court, secretive investigations against her disguised as a general inquiry, denial of leave, denial of her driver and bodyguards leave and allowances, refusal to allocate her work by the chief justice, withdrawal and refusal to reinstate her research assistant, denial of a letter of undertaking to her bankers and her subsequent removal from the judiciary and government payroll.
What Judicial Service Commission Says About The Hearing Session
In an exclusive interview with our Spy Chief Andrew Irumba at their newly founded Head quarters based at Kingdom Kampala Hotel, JSC’s Communications Officer Maria Theresa Nabulya confirmed the Commission having had ‘interface’ with both the Chief Justice Owiny Dolo and Esther Kisakye on Wednesday but denied that the hearing ‘ended prematurely’.
“No my dear! By the way, you need to read Chapter 8 of the constitution where we derive our mandate as JSC. It’s our mandate to cause a disciplinary hearing amongst the judicial officials whenever there’s an issue that needs to be addressed, and we make recommendations. Secondly, the disciplinary hearing is not a one day event, it’s a process. So don’t expect us to have one seating and conclude. So to answer your question, it’s not true that it aborted. We had a successful session and adjourned to a latter date,” she explained.
What Does Chapter 8 Say?
Chapter 8 which is titled the ‘Judiciary’ outlines the mandate and functions of the Judicial Service Commission which are defined under Articles 146-151 of the Constitution.
The mandates of the Commission include;
(1) (a) to advise the President in the exercise of the President’s power to appoint persons to hold or act in any office specified in clause (3) of this article, which includes power to confirm appointments, to exercise disciplinary control over such persons and to remove them from office;
(b) subject to the provisions of this Constitution, to review and make recommendations on the terms and conditions of service of judges, other judicial officers and staff of the judiciary appointed in accordance with article 148 A of this Constitution;
(c) to prepare and implement programmes for the education of, and for the dissemination of information to judicial officers and the public about law and the administration of justice;
(d) to receive and process people’s recommendations and complaints concerning the judiciary and the administration of justice and, generally, to act as a link between the people and the judiciary;
(e) to advise the Government on improving the administration of justice; and
(f) any other function prescribed by this Constitution or by Parliament.
(2) In the performance of its functions, the Judicial Service Commission shall be independent and shall not be subject to the direction or control of any person or authority.
(3) The offices referred to in clause (1)(a) of this article are—
(a) the office of the Chief Justice, the Deputy Chief Justice, the Principal Judge, a justice of the Supreme Court, a justice of Appeal and a judge of the High Court; and
(b) the office of the Chief Registrar and a registrar.
About The Commission:
The Judicial Service Commission is a Constitutional body established under Article 146 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, 1995, whose mandate is to recruit judicial officers and regulate their conduct. The body is also responsible for the initial processes of appointment of the country’s Chief Justice, whose name is then forwarded to the president for appointment and approval and then to parliament for vetting.
The Commission is composed of 9 members with powers to facilitate improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Justice administration in Uganda.The Commissioners are drawn from persons of integrity and unquestionable character.
The Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is Justice Benjamin Kabiito who is deputised by Supreme Court Judge, Justice Faith Mwondha.
The Commissioners are; Justice Stella Arach-Amoko, Hon. Kiwanuka Kiryowa (Attorney General), Ms Ruth Sebatindira (SC), Ms Norah Matovu Winyi, Mr Johnson Bitarabeho, Mr. Jimmy Okello.
