Masaka Votes Recount and Ruling: Ssemakadde Questions Judicial Integrity and Politicisation of Justice

UgandaToday: Masaka Votes Recount and Ruling: Ssemakadde Questions Judicial Integrity and Politicisation of Justice

Kampala, Uganda — Uganda Law Society (ULS) President Isaac Ssemakadde has issued a strongly worded statement questioning the integrity of judicial conduct following a controversial electoral recount decision in Masaka, warning that the matter goes beyond a simple election dispute and strikes at the heart of Uganda’s constitutional order.

In a post published on his official Facebook page, Ssemakadde described the Masaka incident as “a constitutional moment that tests the integrity of our justice system and the confidence of citizens in the rule of law,” arguing that courts must never be used to “correct political inconveniences” or to sanitise clear procedural illegality.

‘Compromised Ballots Fatally Contaminate the Process’

According to Ssemakadde, electoral law is explicit on the treatment of compromised electoral materials. Where ballot boxes are found tampered with, seals broken, or custody of voting materials compromised, the entire process is deemed fatally contaminated.

“In such circumstances, a recount ceases to be a search for truth and instead becomes an exercise in legitimising uncertainty,” he noted.

Chief Magistrate’s Decision Under Scrutiny

At the centre of the controversy is the decision by Masaka Chief Magistrate Albert Asiimwe to order a recount despite allegations of compromised ballot materials. Ssemakadde said the ruling raises grave legal and ethical questions that must be confronted institutionally rather than emotionally or politically.

“These questions are not personal; they are institutional,” he stated, adding that judicial officers derive their legitimacy not merely from appointment, but from strict fidelity to the law, precedent, and constitutional restraint.

Call for Appellate Review and Disciplinary Action

The ULS President proposed two immediate courses of action:

• An appellate review by the High Court, and

• Scrutiny by relevant judicial disciplinary mechanisms should procedural impropriety be established.

Judicial Independence Is Not Judicial Impunity

Ssemakadde cautioned against conflating judicial independence with immunity from accountability.

“Judicial independence does not mean judicial impunity. Discretion does not mean discretion without limits,” he said. He warned that Uganda’s democracy cannot be rescued by silence, fear, or selective application of the law, but only by courageous adherence to legal principles, even when such principles are inconvenient to those in power.

ULS Reaffirms Commitment to Constitutionalism

Reaffirming the position of the Uganda Law Society, Ssemakadde said the organisation will continue to stand firmly on the side of constitutionalism, due process, and electoral justice.

“The law must speak louder than politics,” he concluded.

Hashtags:
#UgandaToday #PhoenixNewsFeeds #OpearNewsFeeds #JudicialIntegrity #RuleOfLaw #ElectoralJustice