Self-exiled Uganda Law Society (ULS) president Isaac Kimaze Ssemakadde has yet suffered another blow after the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Buganda Road dismissed an application where he sought to halt criminal proceedings against him.
In a ruling delivered by the former Chief Magistrate Ronald Kayizzi held that the application for stay of proceedings was fatally defective and that the mere filing of a constitutional petition does not automatically suspend criminal trials unless expressly ordered by the Constitutional Court.
“This Court finds that the initial application for stay of criminal proceedings is fatally defective and incompetent,” Mr Kayizzi ruled, adding that even on merit, the application would still fail.
Ssemakadde is charged with the offence of indecently insulting a woman, contrary to Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act. The charge is based on alleged remarks made against Justice Jane Frances Abodo while she was serving as Director of Public Prosecutions.
According to the charge sheet, it is alleged that on November 18, 2024, at the offices of the People’s Front for Freedom in Katonga Village, Kampala District, Ssemakadde, with intent to insult the modesty of a woman, uttered words referring to Justice Abodo as “a vagina from Karamoja, a dead wood, a dimwit and a shameless careerist,” intending that the said words be heard by the former DPP.
Ssemakadde sought to stay the proceedings pending the hearing and determination of his Constitutional Petition in which he challenges the constitutionality of Section 115(3) of the Penal Code Act, the provision under which he is charged.
In his application, Ssemakadde argued that continuing with the trial before the Constitutional Court pronounces itself on the impugned law would prejudice his right to a fair hearing. The application was brought under Section 11(2) of the Magistrates Courts Act.
However, the application was met with a preliminary objection raised by the private prosecutors, Tonny Tumukunde and Joshua Byamazima, who argued that the supporting affidavit was sworn by a person not qualified to do so.
The affidavit in support of the application was sworn by Brian Akandwanaho, who described himself as an advocate instructed to act for Ssemakadde. The respondents produced a letter from the Chief Registrar dated September 10, 2025, confirming that Akandwanaho was not an enrolled advocate of the High Court of Uganda.
“A non-advocate cannot lawfully assume the role of counsel, nor can he depone to matters that properly fall within the professional conduct of an advocate. The affidavit in issue was sworn by a person who purported to act as an advocate, which renders it defective and inadmissible in law ,” Kayizzi held.
The court ruled that once the supporting affidavit was struck out, the application was left without any evidential foundation and was therefore incompetent.
In an attempt to cure the defect, Ssemakadde’s lawyers later filed an amended Notice of Motion supported by a fresh affidavit sworn by Rogers Ntale, an advocate of the courts of judicature.
However, the court found that the amended application was filed without leave of court and could not stand.
“The amendment was not procedural or cosmetic,” Mr Kayizzi ruled. “It was a substantive attempt to reconstruct the entire application and could not be effected unilaterally without leave of court.”
The magistrate further rejected reliance on Section 14A of the Advocates (Amendment) Act, holding that the provision does not apply where a person who is not an advocate purports to act as counsel from the outset.
Even if the application had been procedurally sound, the court held that it would still fail on merit, emphasizing that the filing of a constitutional petition does not operate as an automatic stay of criminal proceedings.
“The law is settled that the mere filing of a constitutional petition does not, of itself, operate as a stay of criminal proceedings,” Kayizzi said.
In his final orders, the Chief Magistrate dismissed the application in its entirety, upheld the preliminary objection, struck out the amended Notice of Motion and affidavit, and directed that Criminal Case No. 913 of 2024 proceed in accordance with the law. No order as to costs was made.
The decision clears the way for Ssemakadde to stand trial on the charge of indecently insulting the former DPP over the alleged remarks attributed to him in November 2024.