Lawyer Ssemakadde Sues Attorney General Over Holding Two Offices

The city Lawyer Isaac Ssemakadde Kimeze of Centre for legal Aid has petitioned the high Court challenging the Attorney General Kiryowa Kiwanuka holding two offices citing conflict of interest. 

Now Ssemakadde wants court to issue an order of permanent injunction restraining the 2nd respondent and or any other Advocate from acting in the office of Attorney General in violation of Article 113(4) of the Constitution;

An order directing the 2nd respondent (Attorney  General) to return to the National Treasury any and all emoluments and benefits earned while acting repugnantly as the Attorney General.

He also wants court to issue An order directing the first respondent to recover the aforesaid money and report back to Court within six (6) months and An order directing the respondents jointly and severally to submit to Court and the Inspectorate of Government a report of all business conducted by the 1st respondent and K&K Advocates during the 2nd respondent's repugnant tenure, and report back to the Court within six (6) months.

" The 1st respondent is an office established by Article 119 0f the constitution to represent Government in all legal proceedings. Its address is Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Directorate of Civil Litigation, Baumann House, Parliament Avenue, P,O. Box 7183 Kampala. The 2nd respondent is an Advocate of the High Court of Uganda, the incumbent holder of the 1st respondent offlce and one of the founding partners of K&K Advocates (formerly Kiwanuka & Karugire Advocates). His address is K&K Chambers, Plot 5A2, Acacia Avenue Kololo, P.O. Box 6061 Kampala' Your petitioner is aggrieved by certain constitutionally repugnant provisions of the Laws of Uganda and certain actions of the respondents which undermine the Independence of the Legal Profession and Independence of the Judiciary, as well as the constitutional doctrines of Rule of Law and Separation of Powers' 5. Your petitioner specifically alleges that (a) Whereas under our Constitution, the Legal Profession has a sensitive and crucial role to play in controlling the exercise of power and upholding the Bill of Rights, and whereas the institutional autonomy of the Legal Professlon is essential for democracy and the rule of law, sections 4(1), 4(2)and 9 of the Uganda Law Society Act Cap 3O5 superimpose on the membership of the Legal Profession the Executive Branch offices of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and "any person who is appointed to an office in the public service specified by the Minister by .statutory instrument" which is blatantly inconsistent with or in eontravention of paragraphs I(i), II(v), II(vi) and V(ii) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Ailicles 2,8A,20,21, 29(1Xe),38(2), 43, 45,79(l),79(3),99 and 274 of the Constitution. Reads part of the petition. 

In addition, Section 14(1) of the Advocates Act Cap 295 arbitrarily accords to state law officers, namely the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Director of Public Prosecutions (and by extension their deputies and/or assistants), in that order, precedence over all other advocates, includinq advocates granted a special rank in accordance with regulations made under the aforesaid law, which is thus blatantly inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraphs I(i), II(v), Il(vi) and V(ii) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Articles 2, 8A, 20,21, 29(1Xe), 38(2), 4O(2), 43, 45, 79(L),79(3), 99 and 274 of the Constitution. (c) Whereas under our Constitution, the Legal Profession's autonomy is essential for a fair and impartial Judiciary, Government's interference with the Independence of Legal Profession through the impugned provisions of the Uganda Law Society Act and the Advocates Act, by implication or infection, underrpines the Independence of the Judiciary, which is blatantly inconsistent or in contravention of Articles 2,8A,20, 28(1), 79(1), 79(3),99, t26, L28 and 274 of the Constitution. (d) Whereas under our Constitution, the 1st respondent is a Cabinet Minister and thus prohibited from holding "any office of profit or emolument likely to compromise his or her office," the 1st respondent's relevant authorities, including the President, Appointments Committee of Parliament and Inspectorate of Government, have hitherto unjustifiably condoned the 2nd respondent's illegal occupation of the 1st respondent office while he is still a recognized partner in K&K Advocates, a firm with vast dealings with the Government of Uganda, which is inconsistent with and in contravention of Articles 2, 99, LL3(4), 1-l9, 225, 226, 227 ' 23O' 23L and Chapter 14 of the Constitution. (e) As a result of the aforementioned deviations from tenets of Constitutional Democracy, the Uganda Law Society (ULS) was this year embarrassed by repugnant court decisions obtained at the instance of the respondents via High Cout Miscellaneous Application No t2 of 2024, which itself stemmed from High Court Miscellaneous Cause No 8 ol 2024, a judicial review seeking prohibitive orders against the convening of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGNa) of the ULS. Both decisions were blatantly inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraphs I(i), II(v) II(vi), V(ii), XXVI and XXIX(fXg) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Pol3cy and Afticles 2, 8A, 17(1Xi), 20,21,29(1)(aXbXd)&(e), 38, 40, 43, 45, 126, L27, 128 and 27 4 ot the Constitution. 4. Therefore, your humble petitioner prays that thls Honourable Court may: I. MAKE DECLARATIONS THAT: (a) Sections 4(l),4(2) and 9 of.the Uganda Law Society Act Cap 305 and Section 14(1) of the Advocates Act Cap 295 are inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraphs I(i), II(v) and II(vi) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Articles 2, 8A, 20, 21, 29(1Xe), 38(2), 40(2), 43, 45,'79(l),79(3),99 and 274 of the Constitution, and (b) The actions of the President and Appointments Committee of Parliament in appointing and approving the 2nd respondent's appointment as Attorney General while he is still a recognized partner in K&K Advocates, and the actions of Inspectorate of Government disregarding the 2nd respondent's declaration of a repugnant tenure in public office are inconsistent with and in contravention of Afticles 2, 99, 113(4), LLg, 225, 226, 227, 23O, 231 and Chapter 14 of the Constitution, and thus null and void; (c) The office of Attorney General is vacan! and (d) The 2nd respondent is unfit to hold a public office. (e) The court decisions in High Court Miscellaneous Application No t2 ot 2024 and High Court Miscellaneous Cause No I ot 2024, both titled Attorney General v Uganda Law society, are inconsistent with or in contravention of paragraphs I(i), II(v) II(vi), V(ii), XXVI and XXIX(f)(g) of the National Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy and Aiticles 2, 8A, 17(1Xi), 20, ztt 29(lXaXbXd)&(e), 38, 40, 43, 45, t26, L27, L28 and 274 of the Constitution. Reads the petition.