The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has publicly condemned Justice Rosette Comfort Kania for her controversial decision to deny bail to opposition leader Dr Kizza Besigye and businessman Hajj Obeid Lutale.
In a sharply worded statement issued on April 12 and signed by ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe, the association accused Justice Kania of breaching the law, abusing judicial discretion, and undermining the rule of law.
Besigye and Lutale were denied bail on April 11, 2025, despite reportedly meeting all the legal criteria. The judge justified her ruling by speculating that the accused might interfere with ongoing investigations due to the seriousness of the charges—details of which remain undisclosed.
However, the ULS argued that such reasoning had no legal merit.
“This ruling is fundamentally flawed and impeachable,” the ULS declared. “Judicial discretion is not a free pass to override the law.”
Justice Kania’s justification—that detaining the accused was for their own protection from the “temptation to interfere with investigations”—was labelled by ULS as “unacceptably paternalistic.”
“This is not judicial discretion. It is judicial overreach,” the ULS statement read. “The judge substituted legal principles with personal opinion.”
Citing Precedents: ULS Draws Legal Line in the Sand
The ULS backed its position with extensive legal precedent, referencing landmark bail-related cases such as:
- Uganda (DPP) v Col (Rtd) Dr Kiiza Besigye (2005)
- Attorney General v Tumushabe (2008)
- Attorney General v Uganda Law Society (2006)
These cases, the ULS stated, establish clear limitations on judicial discretion—especially when accused persons have fulfilled all legal conditions for bail.
The society also cited Aharikundira v Uganda (2015) and Attorney General v Nakibuule (2016), reinforcing the argument that judicial authority must be grounded in law, not conjecture.
“There’s a clear legal framework for bail. Judges cannot depart from it arbitrarily,” the ULS emphasized.
ULS Moves to Hold Judge Kania Accountable
In a rare and bold move, the ULS pledged to seek disciplinary action against Justice Kania through the Judicial Service Commission.
“We assure court users that the ULS will, in accordance with Executive Order RNB No of 2024, bring Judge Kania to answer for her actions,” Asiimwe stated.
The ULS also encouraged Besigye’s legal team to reapply for bail through the Criminal Division and called for swift action by the Civil Division of the High Court on a related habeas corpus application filed by advocate Eron Kizza.
The society warned that continued misuse of discretion erodes public trust in the judiciary.
“Judges stepping outside the law fracture the very foundation upon which justice and society stand,” the statement concluded.
Judicial Independence or Abuse of Power?
This high-profile legal standoff comes amid broader concerns about judicial independence, political influence, and accountability in Uganda’s courts.
Legal experts and civil society groups are watching closely, viewing this case as a potential turning point for the role of the judiciary in safeguarding civil liberties.
With Dr Besigye’s continued detention and mounting pressure on the judiciary, the case is poised to test the integrity of Uganda’s legal system—and the limits of judicial power.
