‘Missionary for Justice’ By Justice Fredrick Egonda Ntende

 

‘Missionary for Justice’

 

By Justice Fredrick Egonda Ntende

St Luke’s Church, Makoka

Kamuli District

24.10.2026

 

Sometime in 2010 while I was serving as Chief Justice of Seychelles a mutual friend arranged a meeting with Archbishop Augustine Kasujja, the Apostolic Nuncio to the Indian Ocean Islands, who was visiting Seychelles to say farewell to the Government of Seychelles. He had been reassigned to Nigeria. We discussed many matters in our meeting. Among other things he told me, ‘You are a Missionary for Justice. Serve God’s people.’ Or words to that effect as I recall from memory.

Missionary work is often associated with religious endeavours outside one’s home country. Who was I to question the Vatican’s Representative who had issued this charge? Would you be a judge or Chief Justice for that matter and a missionary for Justice at the same time. Why not? I suppose this question will one day be settled by a doctoral candidate defending his dissertation. In the meantime, I humbly accepted this charge from Archbishop Kasujja that I was a Missionary for Justice. I come today with my family and you my friends to give thanks to the Almighty for what He has enabled us to accomplish from the date of my birth to this day, after I retired from public service.

I have elsewhere told the story of how I eventually got into Judicial service and maybe for completeness of my story today I will restate it very briefly. The year was 1991. I had practised law for about 10 years. The Member of Parliament for Bugabula County, my brother and friend, Professor Wilson Nadiope had passed on. Some pressure was mounted on me to seek to replace him. I started consulting. At the time I was the Chancellor of Busoga Diocese. I chose to visit Bishop Bamwoze and let me know the direction I was about to take. I went to his home in Naminage. He asked me, ‘Who told you that is God’s plan for your life?’ I was stuck with no obvious answer. He told me, ‘Let us pray that the Lord himself will show us his plan for your life.’ We did pray before we parted and thereafter every evening in our family devotion at home, we prayed for God’s plan to be revealed to us.

A few weeks later I was attending a conference at Makerere University when I met Chief Justice S S Wambuzi and he asked me, ‘Had the Attorney General talked to me?’ I said, ‘No.’ He then told that they had offered me the post of a Judge of the High Court of Uganda and they had asked the Attorney General to communicate the offer and obtain my response before they could ahead. To cut the long story short I did accept and I was sworn into office in November 1991. As a family we took it that the Lord had answered our prayer and revealed his plan for my life.

For the last 35 years the Lord has often spoken to me about my work and the path I should take ‘through some people’. One of these I believe was our brother, the Hon Mr Justice Kityo. Through him I learnt that the position you played at in the Team Judiciary was simply not determined by the Captain, or Coach; or your performance but a complicated and intricate architecture. When nothing came of my nomination by JSC to the Supreme Court in 1994 I was not downcast. I concentrated on raising my skill and competency levels. I applied and obtained a professional development programme supported by the USA Government, the Humphrey Fellowship. I was supposed to commence the programme in 1996 but ‘my brother’ as he was called ‘tongue in the cheek’ by my colleagues, the Chief Justice asked me to defer the same for one year and I went in 1997/1998.  I concentrated on Human Rights, Courts and Technology, and Continuing Judicial Education, which equipped me with both knowledge and skills that would stand me in good stead both at home and in my missionary journeys abroad.

In the year 1999 I was deployed to East Timor, Asia, in my first missionary journey for Justice. Subsequently I was deployed to Kosovo, Europe in 2002 to 2004 in my second missionary journey for justice. Both these societies were recovering from turmoil. In 2009 I was deployed on my last or rather, third missionary journey to Seychelles as Chief Justice. In 2008 an Advocate had chosen to write an anonymous letter to me stating that I was to be appointed Chief Justice. Indeed hardly 12 months later I was appointed Chief Justice of Seychelles. I later came to identify the author of that letter but he prefers for both the letter not to be published nor himself named! I have given him my word I will not out him.

Had the appointment to the Supreme Court materialised it would not have been possible for me to undertake the 3 missionary journeys or tours of duty that I undertook. Once appointed to the highest court in the land, there is very limited room for manoeuvre. Indeed God does no wrong.

I had always intimated to my family and friends that I intended to retire upon attaining the age of 60 years old as permitted by the Constitution. One evening our youngest, now Dr Jonathan Kiwudhu, heard of this while we were at dinner with some guests. He probably had not quite completed Primary School. He put up his hand and objected. ‘Excuse me Sir. Are you talking about retirement? What about me? Who will pay my school fees? My siblings may not have enough money to do so?’ I told him that I had made arrangements to take care of him even in retirement. He was not convinced. As a result of this intervention I chose to serve out my full term and comply with God’s plan for my life. Last year he graduated and this year he completed his internship with National Referral Hospital, Mulago. I retired on 15.06.2026!

Many of you may have heard that on the 19^th September 2026 at about 9.45am, we, (my aide, Charles Wakabi, Margaret and I), were involved in a motor accident when our vehicle’s right front wheel disengaged from the vehicle, flying away, as we were exiting Kla / Ebb Expressway at Kajjansi. The Lord intervened and we were saved from loss of life or limb! We return the Glory to the Almighty.

I thank the Almighty for providing me with many counsellors, (ordained and lay), the Jethro(s) (Moses’ father-in-law), in my life who were able at different points in my journey to offer helpful counsel and steer me towards the fulfilment of God’s plan for my life. I thank the Almighty for the gift of life, family; my spouse, our parents, our siblings, our children, our grandchildren, the larger family of which we form part, and you all, we are privileged to call our friends, with whom we have walked this journey so far. And I have hope with whom we shall walk the rest of our journey.

Where I have failed the blame lies squarely with me and I seek God’s forgiveness and mercy.

I will end with the words of the Psalmist, in Psalm 116 verses 12 to 13.

‘12. What shall I return to the Lord for all his goodness to me?

13. I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the Lord.’

 

I thank you all, not only for listening to me, but for joining us, as a family and friends, as we return thanks to the Lord for his goodness to us.

May the Almighty Bless you all.

 

Fredrick Egonda Ntende

St Luke’s Church, Makoka

24.10.2026

Ne bis in idem in the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa.

 

Ne bis in idem in the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa.

 

By D. R. Ruhweza

Gaiane Nuridzhanian’s The Principle of ne bis in idem in International Criminal Law examines the common law principle of double jeopardy as established in the Rome statute under Article 20 as a legal principle. This Statute establishes the International Criminal Court (ICC) and in its Article 20 prohibits it from persecuting a person for conduct previously persecuted by another court, where the earlier proceedings were conducted independently or impartially and were not intended to shield the accused from criminal responsibility for crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction. In explaining this principle, Gaiane makes use of ICC cases arising from Africa and explains how the existing law on ne bis in idem as well as the phrasing of Article 20 have played a role in the understanding and application of the principle.

Gaiane, in her introduction, establishes that the main purpose of the principle is to protect the individual as it serves to “spare the accused the burden of a repeat trial”, protect them from “unnecessary harassment and uncertainty” and “safeguard their liberty” once they have already faced trial for the matter. Additionally it serves to restrict the state's power over an individual, ensure the finality of judicial decisions, and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

An idealistic picture is painted by the purpose of the principle but this has only been partially fulfilled in regards to cases arising from the situations in Africa. The wording of Article 20 is to the effect that the protection promised by the principle is not absolute but rather balanced against other interests which are often affected by the exact circumstances of the prior proceedings as well as the specific rule under which the article is being applied. Gaiane relays that the court considers, in relation to the prior proceedings; the finality of the prior judicial decision, the type of court and the genuineness of the proceedings. In regards to the specific rule, she highlights the jurisdiction in question, that is to say intra-jurisdictional vs. inter-jurisdictional, as well as same crime vs. same conduct.

The ne bis in idem is addressed in this book within the context of the ICC cases arising from the situations in Africa following the specifications in Article 20 and I shall review these below.

Article 20(1) embodies the intra-jurisdictional aspect of the ne bis in idem principle, as it applies within the ICC itself, barring retrial of persons already tried by the ICC. The author lays down the conditions necessary to apply this section to include a trial of a person before the ICC, a prior conviction or acquittal by the ICC, the finality of the prior conviction or acquittal and the same conduct forming the basis of the crimes. The triggering of the principle relies on these conditions and the termination of the case before without a conviction or acquittal would have the opposite effect. In consideration of this provision, the author makes reference to the cases of Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang as well as The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta where the charges were vacated midtrial and withdrawn pre-trial respectively, hence preventing the ne bis in idem principle from applying. Finality after the determination of merits was not met in these cases since there is no conviction or acquittal, therefore the accused persons in these cases are liable for retrial before the ICC. Indeed, the protections afforded by the principle to persons are in such circumstances unavailable, specifically, politically charged cases with external interference may block judicial closure and leave the affected persons available for retrial at a later date. Whereas this may be applied to ensure justice of affected persons, one must consider the effect of stretching the ne bis in idem principle’s boundaries through retrials which undermine its spirit as elucidated by Jean Paul Pierini. Notably the cases handled in the ICC arising from African situations are usually politically charged and may be difficult to handle in the domestic courts due to aspects like limited evidence and witness intimidation. The principle ensures that the accused is dealt with accordingly even if the first trial is dismissed.

Article 20(2) brings forth the inter-jurisdictional rule, applying between the ICC and a national criminal court of a state party. This rule prohibits a person from being tried by another court for a crime referred to in Article 5 of the Rome Statute for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the ICC. Gaiane lays down the conditions necessary for this provision to apply, with the more contentious one being, “the use of the term ‘crime’ in Article 20(2), in contrast with the term ‘conduct’ in Article 20(1) and (3), suggests that the ne bis in idem rule in Article 20(2) bars trial for the same offence rather than for the same conduct” (Nuridzhanian, p. 93). Conduct refers to the acts or events underpinning the charges while the crime refers the specific legal offence such as those highlighted in Article 5. The difference in the wording of the provisions raises concerns on how it undermines the principle’s goal of protecting persons from double jeopardy since they could stand to be retried in domestic courts for the same conduct amounting to different crimes recognized by the ICC and the domestic courts. The author demonstrates this using the case of Prosecutor v. Katanga, where following his conviction by the ICC for crimes committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the accused faced charges in DRC for crimes allegedly committed before his trial at the ICC. While reviewing DRC’s prosecution under Article 108 it was established that the ne bis in idem principle was not violated, owing to the legally distinct nature of the charges being brought against him in the domestic court. Notably the narrowing of the principle’s scope was as a result of the use of the term “crime” even though the acts targeted by the domestic prosecution were closely related to the matters handled in the ICC case. 

As explained by the author, the approach taken in Article 20(2) seems to indicate a level of respect towards state’s discretion in legally characterising criminal conduct over which it has jurisdiction. The view herein is that the provision limits the individual's interest in not being tried twice in favor of the state's interest in exercising its sovereign criminal jurisdiction. Given the existing political climate in various African states however, this position puts to question the validity and availability of the principle’s protections to persons especially in regards to human rights concerns. Currently the statute presents a tricky balance between state and individual interests, with the promised individuals’ protections being secondary concern. There’s therefore a need to harmonize the terminology used in the statute or enhance the ICC oversight to control and mitigate successive prosecutions.

Article 20(3) is similarly concerned with the inter-jurisdictional rule which bars the ICC from trying a person, with respect to the same conduct, who has already been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under Articles 6, 7, 8, or 8 bis of the Rome Statute. This provision also provides the exceptions to the ne bis in idem rule which permit an ICC trial if the prior domestic proceedings were for the purpose of shielding the person from criminal responsibility or were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with due process norms and were inconsistent with an intent to bring the person to justice. Much like the previously discussed provisions, the ne bis in idem principle enshrined herein requires the prior judicial proceedings to have resulted in a final decision on the person's criminal responsibility and the author demonstrates this using the case of Prosecutor v. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. The author argues that this provision uses “conduct” to bar ICC trials for acts previously tried domestically and allowed the ICC to assess the genuineness of Libya’s domestic trial of Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi. The ICC’s evaluation focused on whether Libya’s judicial proceedings had resulted in a final decision to the merits, thus acquiring the res judicata effect, and that they were not intended to shield Gaddafi from accountability for crimes against humanity. A pivotal point in this assessment was the lack of finality in regards to the judicial proceedings in the domestic courts, removing the accused from the protection of the ne bis in idem principle. In her assessment Gaiane emphasizes that Article 20(3) supports the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction by allowing intervention when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to prosecute genuinely. She notes that the Gaddafi case in specific illustrates how Article 20(3) balances state sovereignty with international accountability, particularly in African post-conflict settings.

It should be noted however that the strict requirement of a final decision in the domestic proceedings so as to trigger the ne ibis in idem principle provides the ICC with a wide berth to override domestic decisions which ultimately undermines state sovereignty as seen in the Gaddafi case. It could be argued that by applying this provision the ICC unfairly penalizes post-conflict states with limited judicial capacity by undermining their judicial processes. Persons that haven’t received final judgements are open to retrial at the ICC even when they’ve undergone domestic trials on the same conduct. Notably however the reference to conduct instead of crime in this provision creates a broader ambit against ICC retrials of domestically tried matters contrary to the narrow barring put in place in subsection 2.

Conclusively, while analyzing the ne bis in idem principle as a whole as discussed by Gaiane, one can appreciate the author’s distinct and clear analysis of the guiding law and its application to ICC cases arising from situations in Africa. There’s a clear show of African contextual awareness with the author clearly acknowledging the various situations giving rise to the cases arising from the situations in Africa such as in Libya, Kenya and DRC. There is a need to consider various concerns made by scholars and the African Union in regards to fairness and selective justice on the part on the ICC as well as highlight reform proposals relating directly to the shortcomings relating to ICC cases arising from situations in Africa.

 

 

 

Ides of March

_*Ides of March*_

 

Julius Caeser

Gaddafi

Mussolini

Hitler

Stalin

Shaka Zulu

 

 

Or

Jesus Christ

Desmond Tutu

Nelson Mandela

Pastor Noemoller

Mother Teresa

Florence Nightingale

 

Idi Amin

Bokassa

Samuel Doe

Pol Pot

Mengistu

Herold

 

Or Billy Graham

Aung San Suu Kyi

Martin Luther King Jr.

Mahatma Gandhi

Thomas Sankara

Samora Machel

Julius Nyerere

Patrice Lumumba

 

Genghis Khan

Napoleon Bonarparte

Mao Zehong?

NEVER AGAIN

NEVER AGAIN

Silent voices

Dirtied clothes

Mutilated bodies

Orphaned children

 

Displaced families

Widowed Mothers

Butchered face

Landless children

 

Burnt granaries

Blackened huts

Destroyed harvest

Hungered stomachs

 

Sleepless nights

Tired feet

Frightened humans

Raped Men

 

 

Never again!

MR. SIMON BYABAKAMA MUGENYI very GOOD FOR THE JUDICIARY (An old post from 2008)

MR. SIMON BYABAKAMA MUGENYI very GOOD FOR THE JUDICIARY!

(Old Post from 2008)

D.R.Ruhweza

In his article entitled ‘‘Will His ‘Lordship’ Mugenyi convict Dr. Besigye?” SM  2^nd March 2008, Dr. Akaki starts off very well by noting that some of the individuals nominated as High Court Judges, may defy the President out of loyalty to their professional ethics and independently interpret the law the way Justice Kanyehiamba and Justice Ogoola, together with some Namagunga girls have done. This is indeed encouraging and I do support all those who have been nominated to do exactly that. The judicial oath requires that they certainly adhere to their professional calling, and respect the rules of natural justice, and good conscience which I believe they are all competent to do.

Dr. Akaki notes that ‘‘many of the nominations read like an A-Z hit list of a movement legal hit-squad’’. Whereas that might be true, I would like to ask the simple question, what would Akaki do if he was in President Museveni’s shoes? Would he not revert to people in whom he had faith and confidence to promote the cause of justice regardless of whether they are Movementists or not? Would he not revert to people he believed were capable of doing the job just like Justice Kanyeihamba, (a former NRM Minister) has done? This is a phenomenon that also happens in the USA with the president choosing those who he believes will uphold the core values of justice and equity as he thinks fit. It therefore seems to me that as long as the constitution gives the President this mandate, he will choose from those who he believes are competent regardless of their political inclination.

Do not get me wrong, just like Dr. Akaki, I was also quick to observe that many of the nominees are reportedly of the movement ideology, but I have since realized that the likes of Justice Kanyeihamba, Justice Mwondha, Justice Margaret Sekajja and others who were of the same ideology have since vindicated Museveni’s choice by being independent thinkers and adhering to their professional calling. This might be regardless of the fact that the President might not agree with their views. It was once reported that the President criticized Justice Kanyeihamba’s views on the peasantry but at the same time recommended him to become Chancellor to Basajabalaba’s Kampala International University).

Please get me right, this does not necessarily mean that I do agree with all the choices made by the President, but my understanding of the Constitution is that once someone takes the judicial oath, it should no longer be necessary which ideology one belongs. Such judicial officer should be guided by Article 126(2) of the Constitution which requires the courts to met out justice regardless of social and economic status of the litigants, not to delay justice, to provide adequate compensation, to promote reconciliation and to ensure that substantive justice is administered without undue regard to technicalities. As such, any judicial officer who fails in this role should be advised to surrender his office as has been the case for some. My only problem is with the choice of the interim Supreme Court judges (See MUSEVENI PICKS ACTING SUPREME COURT JUDGES by Michael Mubangizi, WEEKLY OBSERVER February 28, 2008), especially those from the Court of Appeal who have already passed judgment in the cases they are now required to adjudicate upon in the Supreme Court. Won’t the principles of natural justice require that these same Judges step down because that would certainly be a conflict of interest? Would they really be able to give Tumukunde’s case for completely new appraisal? That remains to be seen.

Now, to the main theme of Dr. Akaki’s article, I certainly disagree with the assertions of Akaki that ‘’the appointment of (Mr. Simon Byabakama) Mugenyi to the High Court will instantly erase any semblance of independence that is still left in the judiciary’’.  Without delving into the true meaning oor interpretation of independence of the judiciary, I think we ought to understand who Mr. Byabakama is before we right him off as Akaki seems to suggests. Whereas no one can ever know the intents of man’s heart (not even the devil does), I can safely say that I know enough about Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi to assert that he deserves to be a member of the prestigious Ugandan bench. The Judicial Service Commission, whose mandate is to identify and recommend suitable candidates also knows Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi well enough as to recommend him. I have personally interacted with Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi right from my days as an impressionable student at Makerere, and I have found him to be a man of integrity, character, godliness, and independent thought. He is a dedicated and hardworking husband and father whose moral standing in society is to the best of my knowledge unquestionable. Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi was one of those who inspired and mentored us to be god fearing, independent thinking lawyers while we were still at Makerere. Together the likes of Michael Chibita, the late Kabyesiza, Hon. Justice Lugayizi, Hon. Justice Sebutinde, Mr. Sekabanjja, the late Charles Owor and many others, we were challenged and continue to be inspired to practice the law with honesty and diligence in Uganda. Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi indeed continues to take off time to speak to students at the law development centre and faculty of law Christian union events and to even give guest lectures in my criminal procedure classes when I was a lecturer at the Uganda Christian University. We are indeed in need of men of such character on the Ugandan Bench. Going by the Nation television interview of my former student, Mr. Odongo Otto, Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has qualities which I am sure, Mr. Odonga Otto, would have no problem with if he (Odonga) was still part of the vetting committee.

It should also be remembered that this is not the first time that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is being nominated and approved for this position. Indeed, some unconfirmed reports were to the effect that his appointment was delayed because some concerned citizens wondered where a worthy replacement would be found for him at the Directorate. I believe this is because of the excellent job he has been doing at the Directorate of Public Prosecutions. Many of my learned friends will agree that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is a very likeable and hardworking character, always ready to serve with a smile, and that accounts for why there are so many people waiting up to see him every day even as early as 6.30 am and he is always in office. This is a quality many of us in practice would like to see of our judicial officers. Often times we wait for hours for some members of the bench to commence court and this normally disorganizes our schedules.

So, Dr. Akaki, far from what you might think, many a lawyer and judge do respect Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi. Infact I know of some people who have threatened to hire private lawyers to prosecute their cases, if Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi did not do so and in some cases appellate court judges have insisted that he argues cases before them instead of other prosecutors. So for Dr. Akaki to say that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has failed as a prosecutor is very far from the truth. Thus, whereas Dr. Akaki faults him in this regard, I shall not be surprised to learn in the near future, that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi has been chosen to head the special division of the high court that will try the LRA rebels.

Dr. Akaki did quote my learned friend Dr. Mpanga’s submission, but I suspect he (Akaki) did not appreciate the meaning of Mpanga’s words when he said. I will quote….the case was born in the deluded mind of Ms. Joanita Kyakuwa, nurtured and developed in State House, cooked to imperfection in the Criminal Investigations Directorate of the Uganda Police, and presented in full inadequacy by the Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions’’. This statement alone should clearly show you the number of players in the rape case against Besigye, and also explain the role of the DPP. Like many Ugandans, I did not agree with the way Dr. Besigye was arrested during the 2006 elections. Neither did I appreciate the role played by the then CID Boss Kuteesa and the rubble rouser Kyakuwa wose testimony was also astounding to me. The role of these various players, should not be pushed under the carpet.

For Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, I believe it was a case of a Doctor asked to stitch back the head of a decapitated on to the body and expect that man to live! It was way too late and many of us in the legal fraternity knew that the case was a non-starter. That is why Dr. Besigye’s lawyers thought it unnecessary to put him (Besigye) to his defense, inspite of the fact that the court had found that a prima facie case had been established against him. So unlike the assertion of Dr. Akaki, Besigye was in fact required to speak in his defense (not self defense-that means something else completely) but his lawyers opted not to put Besigye on the stand, a prerogative they have as per section 128 of the Magistrates Courts Act ap. 16 and similar sections in the Trial on Indictments Act. It is thus clear to me that this case was never cooked up by Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi. No! The role of the Director of Public Prosecutions is laid out in Article 120 of the Constitution. I wish to emphasize that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is the Deputy DPP not the substantive DPP. As DPP, it was up to Mr. Richard Buteera to either institute criminal proceedings against Dr. Besigye (Article 120(b) or to discontinue the same (Article 120(d). Mr. Richard Buteera chose the former, and I would like to believe, that like any good soldier called to action, Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi had no alternative but to carry out the orders of his boss. We might falter Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi for deciding to go ahead with this trial, or ask the questions; if he is such a man of character, why did he not resign or refuse these instructions? That we can argue another day but for now, we need to appreciate that the calling of a state prosecutor (who is a civil servant) is to carry out government duty. Whereas I do agree that it was a bad case and possibly commenced in bad faith as noted by Justice Katutsi, I would like to believe, that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi must have expressed his opinion on this matter. Whether his boss agreed with him or not is another question, but we should recall that as a body of lawyers, the Uganda Law Society expressed its dissatisfaction with the position taken by Mr. Richard Buteera and other law officers for this and related cases by suspending him from the society for 6 months. No such action was taken against Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi and the reasons sem obvious to me.

Therefore, for a man with arguably the longest list ( so I am meant to believe) of high profile and other convictions in the recent history of the Directorate (Katuramu, Sharma Kooky, Wavamunno, Mureeba to mention but a few), I am sure Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi’s reputation does tell us what quality of lawyer he is.  It is probable that his prowess and seniority made it imperative for Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi to take on the prosecution of Dr. Besigye.

It is further unfortunate to say that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi abandoned the treason trial to become a judge leaving the accused persons in limbo because that would mean that Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi is the one who initiated the trials in the General Court Martial an High Court, at the same time that he is the one who is in charge of the prisons where the accused persons are/were being kept or that without Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, the treason trial cannot go on or that it is Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi who has lodged the appeals in court that called for the stay of the trial(s) which is indeed very far from the truth.

It is therefore clear to me and I believe to many in the legal fraternity and the general Ugandan community, that there is no legal, moral or legitimate hindrance to bar Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi’s candidature for the position of High Court judge. In fact, in my own view, due to his seniority and vast experience, he would even be a far better choice for the appellate courts.

To our mentor Mr. Simon Byabakama Mugenyi, I would like to congratulate you for a job well done and  a promotion well deserved. For Do not give up this the fight justice and carry out your duties without fear and favour.

However, do remember, that the jury is out now. Watching your every move!! Remember the scripture which says ….And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy
 and to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6: 8 NIV. Remember too that the opportunities for corruption and influence peddling are now greater than before. Play your part well and stand for righteousness!! Recall the words of Mordecai to Queen Esther "For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance will arise for the Jews (Read Ugandans) from another place and you and your father's house will perish. And who knows whether you have not attained royalty ( read the judiciary)  for such a time as this?" Esther 4:14. Remember the Scriptures that call you to "Preserve justice and do righteousness (Isaiah 56:1); also Jeremiah 22:3 which says "Do justice and righteousness, and deliver the one who has been robbed from the power of his oppressor. Also do not mistreat or do violence to the stranger, the orphan, or the widow; and do not shed innocent blood in this place. The same advice goes to all the newly appointed members of the Ugandan Bench….

PLEASE, DO US PROUD!!

Daniel R. Ruhweza Esq.

Attorney and Lecturer-at-Law, Makerere University

Member, Uganda Christian Lawyers’ Fraternity.

ARE YOU THE ONE OR SHOULD WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER?

 

ARE YOU THE ONE or SHOULD WE WAIT FOR ANOTHER?

 

By D.R. Ruhweza

 

The Gospel of Matthew narrates a scene in its eleventh chapter, where the disciples of the jailed John the Baptist inquire about the true identity of Jesus. John had not only leaped in his mother’s womb when Jesus was still in Mary’s womb, (Luke 1:41) but he had also declared who Jesus was and then had the honour of baptising Jesus. (John 1:27) In that same breath, John has probably watched in knowing awe when the Holy Spirit descended like dove upon Jesus. (Luke 3:22) It was therefore surprising that, whilst in custody, John would ask his disciples to inquire about the mission or identity of Jesus. The Scripture says in verse 2 –

 

And when John had heard in prison about the works of Christ, he [a]sent two of his disciples 3 and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” (Matthew 11:2 NKJV)

 

Was he experiencing a moment of doubt? Was he thinking twice about that which he knew? Did John, like many before him, assume that the Messiah would take on a militaristic engagement against the Roman Empire? The response of our Lord Jesus Christ seems to suggest that he gave the answer that John was looking for. He told the disciples to tell John what they saw –

 

“Go and tell John the things which you hear and see: 5 The blind see and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear; the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 6 And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.” (Matthew 11:4 NKJV)

 

In essence, Jesus responded by saying res ipsa loquitur (the facts speak for themselves). He was basically telling John that I am indeed the one. In other Scriptures, Jesus states that ‘^…. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly. (John 10:10 NKJV)

 

When I answered the call to lead the Uganda Christian Lawyers Fraternity (UCLF), I had just completed a course at the Institute for National Transformation (INT). (We had been warned by the conveners of the course that many of their students, receive the call to lead when or during their time at the Institute). We were therefore asked to be ready since some didn’t even finish the course before opportunities to lead – often at the top of powerful institutions – would come up. When the call comes, it is often very easy to answer in the affirmative whilst seated in the classroom. However, reality is different when you answer that call asking you to step up and lead.

 

Often times, when the call comes, it is difficult to say yes. This is what happened with Moses the Prophet or Israel’s first King Saul. However, there are also situations like John the Baptist where it is very easy for one to easily say yes but develop self-doubt about what one has been called to do. At some point in my journey, I felt this self-doubt about the mammoth task of leading the UCLF –a Christian, membership based organisation comprising of stellar and senior legal practitioners and judges and justices on the one hand, and students, newly recruited advocates on the other.  Yet I am reminded of these powerful words to Queen Esther from her elder cousin Mordecai

 

Yet who knows whether you have come to the kingdom for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:14 NKJV)

 

In essence, there is always a divine plan that is beyond our convenience, pay grade, comprehension, ability and scale. It is a plan that is from the Lord. It is an enormous plan to build arks, conquer cities and cross rivers and even declare war or death over sons of Pharaohs. It is often quite scary.

 

Nonetheless, by the grace of God, the team and I discovered that pure reliance on the Lord, the pursuit of wisdom, and having values, tenacity and grit is key in leading people. It would later down on me along the way, that leading God’s people requires a lot more divine intervention. Prayer therefore became a powerful key for us. Looking up to mentors and Jethro’s (Exodus 18), and the pursuit of wise counsel was very critical. Indeed, King Solomon says ‘Wisdom is the principal thing; Therefore, get wisdom. And in all your getting, get understanding. (Proverbs 4:7 NKJV).

 

Like the bulldog or the stinging bee, we also realised that tenacity and grit are key in leading a team. Attending the Harvest Institute (now called the School of Leadership), and being exposed to reading from John Maxwell, Richard Foster, General Stanley McChrystal, Patrick Lencioni, amongst others had a huge impact on our time at the leadership of UCLF.

 

Our time was indeed a learning experience –learning how to pray and to maintain a prayer altar, learning how to get fellow Christian lawyers involved in a worthy cause, learning how to lead vertically and horizontally, learning to respond to needs, learning how to face the brutal facts about a situation and then taking the tough decision, learning, unlearning, re-learning. On behalf of the team, we are immensely humbled by the support we received and the prayers we received but most of all, we are grateful for the opportunity to “do”.

 

As I reflect back to the story of John the Baptist, there were indeed times of doubt but we know that everything happens for a reason. Jesus’ response to John’s disciples indicates that Jesus was fulfilling His purpose even when some misunderstood or criticised him. Can it be said of us, that when the call is made, we not only respond but also keep relevant. Are we the one’s for the season? Or should those who need help, support and mentorship wait another?

 

What is your answer?

 

Daniel R. Ruhweza PhD

Chair Emeritus of the Board of Directors & President of UCLF 2016-2020