Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo removed Ssemakadde from speaking at the event. The chief justice said Ssemakadde must apologize for past comments about the courts before he can participate in future events.
In the planned speech, Ssemakadde aimed to address key problems in Uganda's courts. He wrote that people feel angry about slow cases, wrong decisions, and special treatment for some people. These complaints help make courts better, not worse.
He noted that lawyers must stand up to the courts when needed. Their job includes protecting judges from outside pressure but also pointing out problems. Some judges have started pushing back hard against critics. They use old rules from colonial times to punish people who speak against them.
The speech praised a recent Supreme Court decision that stopped military courts from trying regular people. But Ssemakadde pointed to the case of Ivan Ssebaduka as very troubling. Courts put Ssebaduka in prison just for saying what he thought about them.
The Law Society president wrote that courts must change to help Uganda grow. The current system helps powerful people but leaves most citizens behind. He leads what he calls the "Radical New Bar," which aims to fix these basic problems.
Ssemakadde made clear that being radical means looking at the heart of issues, not taking extreme positions just to be different. He wrote that Uganda's prisons hold far more people than they should. Many sit in cells because they lack money or oppose those in power.
The speech ended with strong words about the freedom to speak up. Ssemakadde said the Law Society would keep working until the courts truly changed. He refused to apologize for his past comments. Courts must earn respect through good work, not force it through fear, he wrote.
The Law Society plans to help all prisoners who should be free on bail. This would empty many cells and show which judges make wrong choices. The speech closed by saying lawyers would stay bold and keep fighting for better courts, no matter what.
This marks a growing divide between Uganda's courts and its lawyers. The removal of this speech from the year's first legal event shows deep problems between judges and those who question them.
In the planned speech, Ssemakadde aimed to address key problems in Uganda's courts. He wrote that people feel angry about slow cases, wrong decisions, and special treatment for some people. These complaints help make courts better, not worse.
He noted that lawyers must stand up to the courts when needed. Their job includes protecting judges from outside pressure but also pointing out problems. Some judges have started pushing back hard against critics. They use old rules from colonial times to punish people who speak against them.
The speech praised a recent Supreme Court decision that stopped military courts from trying regular people. But Ssemakadde pointed to the case of Ivan Ssebaduka as very troubling. Courts put Ssebaduka in prison just for saying what he thought about them.
The Law Society president wrote that courts must change to help Uganda grow. The current system helps powerful people but leaves most citizens behind. He leads what he calls the "Radical New Bar," which aims to fix these basic problems.
Ssemakadde made clear that being radical means looking at the heart of issues, not taking extreme positions just to be different. He wrote that Uganda's prisons hold far more people than they should. Many sit in cells because they lack money or oppose those in power.
The speech ended with strong words about the freedom to speak up. Ssemakadde said the Law Society would keep working until the courts truly changed. He refused to apologize for his past comments. Courts must earn respect through good work, not force it through fear, he wrote.
The Law Society plans to help all prisoners who should be free on bail. This would empty many cells and show which judges make wrong choices. The speech closed by saying lawyers would stay bold and keep fighting for better courts, no matter what.
This marks a growing divide between Uganda's courts and its lawyers. The removal of this speech from the year's first legal event shows deep problems between judges and those who question them.
