Humanist

What is your mission?

Let me use the example of the 2025 best performing post on my blog, to explain what my mission is. A post that I authored and published in February 2025, “Duke of Sussex Prince Harry touching people around the world with ‘we are ‘invictus spirit’,” is that post.

Its focus, I shared a critique of the conduct of:

• Men and women in uniform
• The adorned in legal wigs, gowns and robs
• Officers of the Courts of Law
• Justice System
• Law and Order Sector

Using unfortunate happenings during the opening of the New Law Year 2025, I exemplified my assertions about the status quo. How the disrespectful manner Chief Justice Alfonse Chigamoy Owiny-Dollo treated the Uganda Law Society (ULS) and its President, Isaac Ssemakadde.

“The scarcest and most precious of the world’s resources, character … No lack of weak moral character in the world.” CLICK HERE to read the post.

“This is beautifully written; I really can’t add anything to this piece other than to reaffirm Prince Harry’s message that one of the most powerful ways to heal is by having a purpose,” a Reader commented on the post.

“Life is a canvas, and Senior Counsel Ssemakadde is painting a masterpiece of courage. He’s taking a stand for the Rule of Law, come hell or high water. His fearless spirit is a beacon of hope, proving that the pen is mightier than the sword,” another Reader commented on the post.

And so, when I first heard of the ULS “Executive Order RNB No. 6 of 2025,” my knee jerk reaction was:

Has ULS President Ssemakadde finally lost his mind?

CLICK HERE to read Executive Order RNB No. 6 of 2025

Interestingly, it is the rapid boisterous sanctimonious uproar that followed, and from those that I assume are members of the ULS, that stopped me in my tracks. I took a pose to reflect a bit more, before sharing my critique. Here goes:

Ironically, the major difference of opinion among those entitled to don on legal wigs, gowns and robs, often referred to as the learned, is premised on a fallacious factoid that the ULS is an apolitical body that must stay neutral on matters the nation electing our national political leaders.

My reaction to that fallacious premise is “What Now?”

Fact is, like all professional associations, ULS it is not apolitical. The purpose for which it is established, includes advocacy and lobbying for the interest of its members, advocates. “To represent, protect and assist members of the legal profession in Uganda as regards conditions of practice and otherwise.”

Furthermore, ULS has the good fortune of being established by statutory instrument, with a clear political mandate, “to protect and assist the public in Uganda in all matters touching, ancillary or incidental to the law.”

CLICK HERE to access the Uganda Law Society Act (CAP 276)

Formal logic necessarily dictates that during presidential and parliamentary elections, when the ULS stays ‘neutral’, does not speak out and does not speak up, it is derelict in duty to its members and to the public.

Meaning that ULS does its duty when it endorses a candidate on the claim that candidate will better assure desired conditions of practice for advocates; and/or will be amenable to propositions from ULS to protect and assist the public.

Logic demands that the debate among advocates, case in point, should be around questions such as:

Why did ULS society endorse, Candidate Robert Kyagulanyi of the National Unity Platform (NUP), the leading opposition party current, over all other candidates contesting for the presidency?

Why should ULS endorse Candidate Kyagulanyi and not Candidate Retired Major General Gregory Mugish Muntu of the Alliance for National Transformation, he with a significantly higher ‘character acumen’; and political experience?

Moreover, “Muntu won the presidential debate on NTV. He seemed to head and to shoulder ahead of the pack, why? He’s fairly grounded on how government works.” This as Asserted by Ugandans At Heart, with a 16K following on Facebook. A page started in 2007 by a Ugandan based in London.

So why didn’t ULS endorse Candidate Muntu?

Robust debates around questions such as these did not overtly take place, as much as did the debate of those falsely asserting political neutrality of ULS. It gives room to speculate that the ULS governing council, premised its decision to endorse Candidate Kyagulanyi on igniting and attracting maximum publicity.

If that be the case, then ULS President Ssemakadde and the ULS governing council that he leads have not lost their minds. Their endorsements, on behalf of ULS, were well thought out for the purpose of igniting debate and spotlighting issues, it would appear.

Sadly, for me, as an ongoing litigant and one who had the privilege of sharing my plight in a keynote address I was invited to give at ULS, I think the opportunity to debate the more important issues around Executive Order No. 6 during the 2026 election campaigns has been missed.

CLICK HERE to read “Dinosaur T-Rex enforcer of criminal justice,” for clarity on the issues I would have loved to be debated around Executive Order No. 6 – the conduct of actors in the justice law and order sector.

Plenty of precedents were set during the 2021-2026 presidential and parliamentary term, on matters injustices and unsuitable working conditions for advocates. Including, suffering of Ugandans, such as I, in pursuit of justice. This should have been debated and commitments got from vying candidates.

How does my long ‘rumble’ answer “What is my mission?”

Well, my mission is civic activism rooted in humanism. Through this post, I am “emphasizing active citizen participation in public life for the common good.” In particular, I am having my say. Sharing my opinion that by choosing ‘neutrality’ ULS becomes derelict of its duty.

That a dereliction of duty by ULS, moreover, that validates questioning of its usefulness to the public. To what degree does the general public feel ULS protects and assists us in all matters touching, ancillary or incidental to the law?