Uganda’s legal fraternity has pushed back strongly against recent remarks by incoming Chief Justice Flavian Zeija, insisting that judicial criticism rights are protected under the Constitution and apply fully to judges as public officials.
In a statement released on February 6, the Uganda Law Society said attempts to discourage online criticism of judges threaten free expression and risk weakening public confidence in the justice system. The lawyers’ body argued that robust debate, even when harsh or uncomfortable, remains central to democratic accountability.
The response followed comments attributed to Justice Zeija during the opening of the New Law Year, where he reportedly expressed concern about social media attacks targeting judicial officers. While acknowledging the pressures faced by judges, the Law Society stressed that judicial criticism rights cannot be curtailed simply because commentary is offensive or unsettling.
Judicial criticism rights protected by the Constitution
The Law Society grounded its position in Article 29 of Uganda’s Constitution, which guarantees freedom of expression. According to the statement, this protection extends to critical and even abrasive speech directed at state institutions, including the courts.
The lawyers emphasized that public officials who wield significant power over citizens’ liberty and property must accept a higher level of scrutiny than private individuals. Shielding judges from criticism, they warned, would place the judiciary at odds with constitutional principles.
Warnings over chilling effect on debate
The statement cautioned that threats of prosecution against online critics could discourage legitimate public discussion and foster fear around speaking about judicial conduct. Such an approach, the society noted, risks damaging the judiciary’s credibility rather than protecting it.
Concerns were also raised about the continued use of colonial-era legal concepts such as scandalizing the court, alongside newer laws like the Computer Misuse Act and the Data Protection and Privacy Act. The Law Society said these tools increasingly appear linked to efforts to suppress dissent, contradicting the ideals of an independent judiciary.
Reforms urged instead of silencing critics
Rather than focusing on policing online narratives, the lawyers’ body urged judicial leaders to prioritize reforms that strengthen justice delivery. These include reducing case backlogs, ensuring merit-based appointments, improving accountability, and demonstrating independence in politically sensitive cases.
According to the statement, public respect for courts grows through visible improvement, not demands for deference. The Law Society cited longstanding concerns over corruption, delays, favoritism, and limited access to justice as issues that continue to shape public perceptions of Uganda’s legal system.
Judicial criticism rights and public trust
The society warned that treating critics as adversaries could push the judiciary into the political arena, further eroding institutional trust at a time of heightened public scrutiny. Judges, it argued, serve the people and should not appear insulated from them.
The statement concluded with an offer to engage constructively with the judiciary on reforms aimed at restoring confidence in the justice system. It was signed by ULS President Isaac K. Ssemakadde and members of the governing council affiliated with the Radical New Bar faction.