Uganda Law Society Demands Singiza’s Resignation After Reported Muhoozi Endorsement

By Uganda Today Reporter

KAMPALA, October 28, 2026 — The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has demanded the immediate resignation of Justice Dr Douglas Singiza Karekona as Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) following a reported endorsement of General Muhoozi Kainerugaba’s presidential candidature at the headquarters of the Patriotic League of Uganda (PLU) in Nakasero, Kampala.

In a holding statement issued on Wednesday, ULS President Isaac K. Ssemakadde questioned the propriety of the reported endorsement, arguing that the head of a constitutional body responsible for recruiting and disciplining judicial officers must uphold the principles of impartiality, integrity and judicial independence.

The statement follows a social media post attributed to Hon. Michael Mawanda, who said Justice Singiza had visited the office of the PLU National Chairman and endorsed General Muhoozi for President of Uganda.

The development has brought renewed attention to the relationship between Uganda’s judicial institutions, political organisations and the military, as well as the constitutional obligations of public officeholders.

Mawanda’s Post Triggers Fresh Debate

In a post published on X on October 28, Mawanda said he had received Justice Singiza at the PLU headquarters in Nakasero during a courtesy call.

According to Mawanda’s account, the Judicial Service Commission chairperson warmly endorsed General Muhoozi Kainerugaba for President, describing the reported support as an affirmation of a shared vision for a stronger and more just nation.

The post included photographs showing Justice Singiza signing a visitors’ book and standing in an office alongside Mawanda.

The reported endorsement has since drawn criticism from the Uganda Law Society, which maintains that the leadership of a constitutional institution entrusted with safeguarding the integrity of judicial appointments must remain above partisan political interests.

The account of the endorsement in this report is attributed to Mawanda’s social media post. 

ULS Questions Judicial Independence And Impartiality

Ssemakadde’s statement places the controversy within the broader constitutional framework governing the independence of the Judiciary.

The Society cites Article 128 of the Constitution, which protects judicial independence and provides that the courts shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.

It also points to Articles 146 and 147, which establish the Judicial Service Commission and provide for its role in supporting the administration and independence of the Judiciary.

According to ULS, the chairperson of the Commission occupies a particularly sensitive position because the institution participates in the recruitment, appointment and disciplinary processes affecting judicial officers.

The Society argues that public confidence in the Judiciary depends not only on actual impartiality but also on the appearance of impartiality.

It further invokes the Judicial Code of Conduct and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, which emphasise independence, impartiality, integrity and propriety in judicial service.

The central question raised by ULS is whether the reported political endorsement is compatible with the standards expected of a person occupying such a constitutionally significant office.

Constitutional Petition Against Singiza Still Pending

The Law Society also revisited its existing legal challenge to Justice Singiza’s appointment.

According to the statement, ULS filed Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2025 on July 4, 2025, challenging his appointment as chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission.

The Society alleges that Justice Singiza does not satisfy the constitutional requirements concerning high moral character and proven integrity. It also contends that his transition to a full-time appointment outside the Judiciary raised questions under Section 20(3) of the Administration of the Judiciary Act.

On July 8, 2025, ULS says it filed Constitutional Application No. 11 of 2025 seeking urgent intervention concerning the Commission’s operations under his leadership.

These are allegations advanced by the Society in pending legal proceedings, rather than findings established by a final court judgment.

The dispute over the Commission’s composition and the absence of Uganda Law Society representatives has also featured in public debate. Earlier reporting by Daily Monitor documented concerns among lawyers about the functioning and constitutionality of judicial appointment processes amid vacancies in the Commission.

PLU’s Legal Status And Muhoozi’s Military Position

The statement further links the controversy to the unresolved legal questions surrounding the Patriotic League of Uganda and the political activities of General Muhoozi, who serves as Chief of Defence Forces.

ULS maintains that PLU is an unregistered political organisation operating unlawfully and argues that its leadership by a serving military officer raises constitutional questions.

The Society invokes Article 208(2) of the Constitution, which requires the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces to be non-partisan and subordinate to civilian authority. It also cites restrictions under the UPDF Act and refers to Executive Order RNB No. 13 of 2026, which addresses the legal status of PLU and the political role of the serving military commander.

The Law Society is calling on the relevant authorities to examine the organisation’s status and take action in accordance with the law.

However, the Society’s characterisation of PLU as illegal and its interpretation of the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions should be understood as its legal position. The questions require determination through the relevant legal and administrative processes.

Law Society Lists Six Demands

In its holding statement, ULS sets out a series of demands directed at the Judiciary, Parliament and other public institutions.

The Society wants the Constitutional Court to urgently schedule Constitutional Petition No. 12 of 2025 and Constitutional Application No. 11 of 2025 for hearing during the forthcoming session on November 3–4, 2026.

It also demands:

• Justice Singiza’s resignation: The immediate departure of the Judicial Service Commission chairperson from the office.
• A statement from the Chief Justice: Public clarification of the Judiciary’s position on judicial officers attending the premises or functions of political organisations.
• Action by the Uganda Judicial Officers Association: A public position on the controversy and support for the Society’s call for resignation.
• Intervention by electoral and prosecutorial authorities: The Electoral Commission, Attorney General and Director of Public Prosecutions should address the questions raised about PLU’s registration and operations.
• Recusal by public officials: The Speaker of Parliament, Anita Among’s successor in office, and Deputy Speaker Thomas Tayebwa, alongside other public officeholders, are called upon to distance themselves from PLU.

The demands represent the Society’s position and do not, by themselves, establish that the named institutions or individuals have accepted its interpretation of the law.

What Is At Stake For Uganda’s Judiciary?

The controversy raises a wider question about the distinction between an individual’s political freedoms and the institutional responsibilities attached to public office.

Judicial independence requires courts and judicial officers to make decisions without improper political influence. Equally important is public confidence that judicial appointments and disciplinary processes are conducted fairly and without partisan considerations.

The Judicial Service Commission occupies a pivotal position in this system because of its role in the recruitment and regulation of judicial officers.

The controversy is therefore likely to intensify scrutiny of the Commission’s leadership, its composition and the standards expected of those entrusted with its constitutional responsibilities.

The matter also presents an opportunity for the relevant institutions to clarify the applicable rules and establish whether any conduct complained of breaches constitutional, statutory or professional obligations.

Calls For Accountability As Legal Questions Remain Unresolved

Ssemakadde maintains that the Uganda Law Society will not allow the independence of the Judiciary to be compromised.

The Society’s demands now place pressure on the Constitutional Court to hear the pending applications and on the relevant public institutions to respond to the issues raised.

As the controversy develops, the distinction between allegations, legal arguments and established findings will remain critical.

Justice Singiza’s reported endorsement, the pending challenge to his appointment and the separate dispute over PLU’s legal status raise questions that should be addressed through transparent procedures and the rule of law.

Uganda Today will continue following developments, including any response from Justice Singiza, the Judicial Service Commission, the Judiciary and the other institutions named in the statement.

#UgandaToday #UgandaLawSociety #JudicialIndependence #DouglasSingiza #MuhooziKainerugaba #RuleOfLaw