A revelation has reverberated through the legal circles, Justice Percy Tuhaise, a member of the Supreme Court, has made startling claims of being subjected to pressure by Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny Dollo to deliver a contentious judgment in the high-profile case involving Hamis Kiggundu, known as Ham, and Diamond Trust Bank (DTB).
The case, garnering significant public attention, revolves around Ham’s legal battle with DTB over alleged transactions conducted without Bank of Uganda’s approval. During the court proceedings, Ham’s lawyer, Roberts Friday Kagoro, raised concerns about two crucial pending applications. Despite these reservations, Justice Tuhaise proceeded with the seven-panel Supreme Court verdict.
Unsettled by the situation, Counsel Kagoro urged Justice Tuhaise to record his dissenting stance on the court’s record, distancing himself from the judgment delivered by her and her fellow justices.
In her defense, Justice Tuhaise disclosed that she had reservations about delivering the judgment due to alleged pressure from Chief Justice Dollo, who purportedly instructed her to do so. These revelations have cast doubt on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
One of the pending applications pertained to DTB Kenya’s failure to present a defense regarding their dealings with Ham, which allegedly lacked the necessary approval from the Bank of Uganda. In response, Ham’s legal team requested the Supreme Court to enter a judgment against DTB Kenya, known as a judgment on admission, as they had failed to respond adequately to the lawsuit.
The other application sought to introduce additional evidence from Kenya’s central bank, supporting Ham’s claim that DTB Kenya lacked approval during their dealings with him. The Supreme Court’s failure to address these vital applications led Ham’s lawyers from Muwema and Company Advocates to assert that their client’s right to a fair trial was violated, as he was allegedly condemned unheard. Consequently, they took the matter to the Constitutional Court, contending that the Supreme Court’s verdict was unconstitutional, irrational, and illegal, citing the mishandling of these applications as evidence.
Justice Tuhaise, on the other hand, maintains that she perceived no legal impediment to delivering the judgment. She contends that all parties involved in the case were duly notified, and no objections were raised to the judgment being delivered. Furthermore, she argues that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to address the two applications in question, as they were not within its purview.
The fact that Justice Tuhaise delivered the judgment unilaterally adds complexity to the situation, as she maintains that she lacked the authority to handle the applications, which should have been addressed by a panel of judges.
As this revelation sparks widespread debate on the integrity and transparency of the judicial system, calls for an independent investigation into the allegations of pressure from Chief Justice Dollo are gaining momentum. The public seeks answers and accountability.
With the legal battle ongoing, all eyes are on the Constitutional Court, awaiting its decision on the fate of the controversial Supreme Court verdict and addressing the serious concerns surrounding the judicial process and the conduct of those involved in this high-profile case.
Would you like to get published on this Website? You can now email Uganda Times: an Opinion, any breaking news, Exposes, story ideas, human interest, articles, or any interesting videos: [email protected]. Or join the Ugandatimes WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for the latest updates
