Kerry Howard Mwesigwa
The Judicial Service Commission has taken decisive action against two judicial officers in Uganda. Grade One Magistrate Latif Abubaker Nakibinge has been dismissed from the judiciary, while Chief Magistrate Moses Kule Lubangula has received a severe reprimand. These disciplinary measures were implemented by the Commission following a meeting on May 12th, 2023. The dismissal notice for Magistrate Nakibinge was issued on May 17th, 2023, while the severe reprimand notice for Chief Magistrate Lubangula was also conveyed.
Magistrate Nakibinge faced allegations of misconduct related to the misappropriation of funds. Specifically, he withdrew a significant sum of money, amounting to approximately seven million shillings, from the Court Operation Fund Account. These funds were intended to be handed over to Kamugunda of Matovu and Kamugunda and Company Advocates. However, Nakibinge failed to fulfill his obligation and neglected to deliver the funds as required. Consequently, the Judicial Service Commission charged him with abuse of judicial authority, and during the subsequent disciplinary proceedings, he pleaded guilty to the charges.
After careful consideration of Nakibinge’s admission of guilt and his plea for leniency, the Judicial Service Commission concluded that he had indeed committed the alleged disciplinary offense. As a result, the decision was made to dismiss him from the judiciary with immediate effect. This action was taken in accordance with regulation 31(1)(a) of the Judicial Service Commission, reflecting the Commission’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity within the judiciary.
In a separate case, Chief Magistrate Moses Kule Lubangula, who was stationed at Mengo Court, faced charges of misconduct. He was accused of presiding over a case that fell outside the jurisdiction of a Grade One Magistrate. Specifically, Lubangula entertained a case involving Mutesasira John versus Mukasa Galiwango ex parte, without adhering to the Chief Justice’s directive of 2016. This directive explicitly prohibited the granting of ex parte orders without notifying the opposing party and without the filing of an affidavit of service.
After a comprehensive review of the evidence presented during the disciplinary proceedings, the Judicial Service Commission determined that Lubangula had indeed committed the alleged disciplinary offenses. However, taking into consideration his 59 years of age and 29 years of service in the Judiciary, the Commission opted to issue a severe reprimand as the appropriate penalty. This severe reprimand serves as a written warning to Lubangula, emphasizing that any recurrence of similar misconduct in the future may lead to more severe consequences, including dismissal.
