New twist in Mubaje – Ssemambo fight for judges

A lawyer has challenged the Principal Judge, Dr Flavian Zeija’s decision to reallocate the case that pits Mufti Sheikh Shaban Ramathan Mubaje against his former deputy, Sheikh Abdallah Ssemambo. The two lead separate factions of the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC).

On May 21, Zeija wrote to the acting resident judge of the High Court in Jinja, Faridah Shamilah Bukirwa Ntambi, who has been hearing the case, instructing her to hand the case file to Dr Douglas Singiza of the High Court’s civil division, which lawyer Mahir Muhamood Kigula argues was unconstitutional and illegal.

 “My lord, you do not have the jurisdiction to entertain a complaint of bias or misconduct of a judicial officer in the course of hearing a case before them. Allegations of bias, misconduct, impartiality or personal interest of a judicial officer in a case they are hearing must be handled in accordance with Rule 8 of the Constitution (Recusal of judicial officers) (practice) directions 2019,” Kigula wrote in a May 27 letter addressed to Zeija.

Rule 8 of the Constitution (Recusal of judicial officers) (practice) directions 2019 is to the effect that a party can only seek recusal of the judicial officer before the same judicial officer.

Zeija’s reallocation of the case to Singiza followed a complaint by the Mufti, Sheikh Shaban Ramadhan Mubaje protesting Ntambi’s handling of the case.

See: Mubaje floors Ssemambo in the battle for judges.

Citing paragraph 2 of Zeija’s letter, Kigula argued, demonstrates that after receiving Mubaje’s complaint, he (Zeija) unilaterally directed Justice Ntambi to forward the file without even giving an opportunity to the applicants in the case to make a response.

“Your lordship, the import of your direction is that you found Justice Ntambi guilty of the allegations in the complaint of the Mufti. This is because, upon the complaint, you unilaterally directed her not to proceed with the hearing of the case and forward the file accordingly,” he stated.

Zeija’s decision, Kigula further argued, promotes forum shopping and encourages the habit of choosing the judicial officer to handle the party’s case, which is abhorred by the Judiciary.

Kigula further argues that the decision undermines the principle of judicial independence provided for under Article 128 of the Constitution.

“One is left to wonder if the litigants in the case equally file complaints in your office against Justice Singiza, whether your lordship will move the file to another judge. Will the file be moving from one judge to another just because litigants are not happy or comfortable with the trial judge?” Kigula wonders.

Making reference to past cases determined by the Supreme Court, Kigula contends that the principal judge should have advised the Mufti to raise his complaints before Justice Ntambi and ask her to recuse herself from the case since the rule on bias and recusal ought to be raised before the judge in question.

Dr Zeija could not be reached for comment since he is out of the country on official duties.

The ongoing litigation battle stems from a December 17, 2023, resolution by a section of the UMSC general assembly members, to suspend Mubaje from the office of Mufti, and appointed Ssemambo to act in Mubaje’s place.