Pastor Bujjingo Tormentor Mabirizi in Trouble; Ordered to Cough Hundreds of Millions

Justice Musa Ssekaana of the High Court in Kampala has directed perennial litigant Hassan Male Mabirizi, considered, by some, a tormentor of Pastor Aloysius Bujjingo (read story here) and other high-profile Ugandans, to pay Shs300m as a fine for his contempt of court.

Justice Ssekaana ruled in favour of Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka in an application he had filed against lawyer Mabirizi.

AG Kiwanuka had sought declarations that Mabirizi was in contempt of court and should be imprisoned for this crime.

According to the AG, after losing Miscellaneous Cause No 287 of 2021 in which he had challenged the Capital Markets Authority’s approval of the Initial Public Offering (IPO) of MTN (U) Ltd in a ruling delivered by Justice Phillip Odoki on November 15, 2021, Mabirizi had published statements, and made comments in contempt of court and Justice Odoki.

The statements and utterances were published on Mabirizi’s Twitter account under the handle @MabiriziHKK and on Uganda Peoples’ Interests Facebook page.

Mabirizi hinged his defence on his thoughts that AG Kiwanuka’s application was meant to silence him yet he knew he was entitled to freedom of speech and expression on the decisions of court.

Justice Ssekaana reminded Mabirizi that while he had freedom of expression and speech on court processes as enshrined in the Constitution, the same should not be used to utter contemptuous statements against courts and judges.

He also lectured the lawyer that freedom of speech and expression have limitations.

“I do not agree with this assertion, the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution should never be used to attack judicial officers in the execution of Constitutional mandate and their independence ought to be protected as provided under Article 128(2): No person or authority shall interfere with the courts or judicial officers in the exercise of their judicial functions,” wrote Ssekaana in his judgement delivered on January 27.

“This right, however, is not absolute and is subject to certain qualifications i.e. reasonable restrictions on the grounds set out in Article 43. The Constitution, which has given its citizens right to freedom of speech and expression, has given certain powers to the Judiciary to guard against the misuse of the same, to prevent the right to freedom of speech and expression being so exercised that it damages the dignity of the Courts or interferes with the ‘administration of justice.”

The judge made it clear that scandalizing court would undermine efforts aimed at ensuring a healthy democracy. He also told Mabirizi that there was need for judicial officers to be accorded an environment within which to work without fear or favour.

“Any conduct attributing improper motive to a judge or any scurrilous abuse to a Judge will amount to scandalizing the court. Scurrilous abuse of a judge or court, or attacks on the personal character of a Judge, are punishable contempt. Punishment is inflicted to prevent mischief which undermines or impairs the authority of the court. That is why the court regards with particular seriousness the allegations of partiality or bias on the part of the Judge or a court. The judge has to act without any fear thus no one can be allowed to terrorize or intimidate the judges with a view to secure orders of one’s choice. In no civilized system of administration of justice, this can be permitted,” said Ssekaana.

“A powerful judicial system is a condition precedent for a healthy democracy. If browbeating the court, flagrant violation of professional ethics and uncultured conduct is tolerated that would result in ultimate destruction of a system without which no democracy can survive. When there is a deliberate attempt to scandalize the court, it shakes the confidence of the litigant public in the system, the damage is caused to the fair name of the judiciary.”

Based on this argument, Justice Ssekaana fined Mabirizi Shs300m and ordered him to stop publishing and uttering contemptuous statements against judicial officers and courts of law.