Maverick lawyer Male Mabirizi has protested the communication made by Buganda Road Chief Magistrate Ritah Kidasa Wanyama that she has instructions from the Chief Justice Dr Flavian Zeija to adjourn his criminal matter before her.
Kidasa explained that the directive does not only target Mabirizi’s case but all criminal cases before her.
She said that this was made because of the absence of government lawyers practicing with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) who were attending other official duties.
Mabirizi protested insisting that Kidasa made the adjournment in bad faith. He wondered why she was executing directives in his matter from a person who is the complainant.
More Read
He warned that she will be answerable for the continued violation of his human rights by keeping him in prison illegally.
Mabirizi was in Court for the third time to plead with Kidasa to recuse herself from his matter after accusing her of being biased on grounds that he filed a complaint with Judicial Service Commission seeking for her removal from the office of the magistrate claiming that she was incompetent.
He further claimed that he instituted private criminal prosecution in the Criminal Division of the High Court under Human Rights Enforcement Act accusing her of violating his rights and also dragged her together with prosecutor Richard Birivumbuka to the East African Court of Justice.
Mabirizi was also planning to make his third attempt to be released on mandatory bail claiming that the law allows it since he has spent more than sixty days on remand on charges related to broadcasting through a social media account without a license.
Kidasa told Mabirizi that her hands are tied and adjourned his matter to 11th June, 2026 and after she walked back to her chambers under tight security.
The development comes days after a team of senior constitutional lawyers led by Phillip Karugaba placed Lino Anguzu the Director of Public Prosecution and the judiciary that the continued imprisonment of Mabirizi is illegal.
Other lawyers in the matter include; Peter Mukidi Walubiri, Bruce Kyerere, Bernard Banturaki, Dr Henry Onoria, Patrick Mugalula, Mary Goretti Nakamya, Kato Tumusiime, Emmanuel Candia, Paul Mukiibi, Peter Arinaitwe, Anthony Odur, Ronald Samuel Wanda, Tumusiime Kakuru, Primah Kwagala, Sharon Nakandha, Christopher Mbazira, Lillian Drabo, Morgan Muhindo, Sarah Bireete, Sarah Kasande, Eron Kiiza, Timothy Amanya, Edward Kato Sekabanja, Mike Okua, Phillip Karugaba and others
They noted that Anguzu has the discretion to prosecute, and equally to decline to prosecute especially after establishing that it is not good to proceed with prosecution that is tainted by illegality, irrationality or that is procedural improper.
The lawyers explained to the DPP that the charges brought against Mabirizi for using his social media to comment critically on the conduct of judicial officers, bear all the characteristics of the selective and politically motivated prosecutions that the Constitutional Court condemned in Karamagi Vs the Attorney General Constitutional case.
They insisted that Mabirizi’s TikTok commentary on Dr Zeija and Justice Musa Ssekaana, falls squarely within the tradition of public commentary on the exercise of public power that is protected by Article 29(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The lawyers pleaded with Court, especially Kidasa, that they are the ultimate guardians of the Constitution and the fundamental rights it enshrines and they derive their authority not from the executive or any organ of state, but from the Constitution itself and from the people of Uganda.
“It is for this reason that courts must not permit themselves to be used as a playground for the prosecution on charges that are founded on provisions already declared unconstitutional by the highest courts of this land, or on provisions that are manifestly void on the same constitutional principles,” the lawyers stated.
The lawyers further pleaded with Court to act decisively to bring an end to what they termed as a continuing travesty of justice where by a citizen of Uganda, exercising his constitutionally protected right to free expression, has been held on remand for months on charges that have no lawful foundation, that have been substituted for earlier charges already acknowledged to be unconstitutional, and that serve no discernible purpose other than the suppression of legitimate public criticism.
“The Judiciary alone possesses the authority to arrest this course and to vindicate the constitutional rights at stake. We call upon the courts to discharge that responsibility without hesitation,” the lawyers stated.
