The Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court has dismissed two applications by controversial lawyer and activist Male Mabirizi seeking the recusal of the trial magistrate from his criminal case, branding his allegations of bias as “speculative and self-created.”
Chief Magistrate Ritah Kidasa Neumbe ruled on Friday that the grounds advanced by Mr. Mabirizi lacked evidence and were insufficient to establish judicial bias.
Mr. Mabirizi is currently facing four counts under the Computer Misuse Act over alleged offensive social media posts targeting Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo (then Principal Judge Flavian Zeija) and Court of Appeal Justice Musa Ssekaana. He denies the charges.
“The grounds advanced by the applicant are speculative, self-created, and unsupported by evidence,” Ms. Neumbe ruled while dismissing the second recusal application. “To allow recusal on such grounds would set a dangerous precedent where litigants could disqualify judicial officers at will.”
The magistrate similarly threw out a third recusal application in which Mr. Mabirizi alleged that she was a conflicted party. The activist argued that the magistrate is a witness in ongoing proceedings before the East African Court of Justice (EACJ), had acted under instructions from the complainant, and had failed to handle the case fairly.
“The grounds advanced are speculative, unsubstantiated, and fail to meet the objective test of bias,” Ms. Neumbe held, adding that judicial independence must be protected from repeated applications intended to derail court proceedings.
Moments after the dual rulings were delivered, Mr. Mabirizi expressed his dissatisfaction, arguing that a judicial officer facing legal proceedings instituted by an accused person cannot claim to be impartial.
“I am not satisfied with your conclusions because I have not yet read the ruling,” Mr. Mabirizi told the court. “A judicial officer who is a witness in a case pending before the East African Court of Justice, has sworn an affidavit, and is liable to cross-examination cannot purport to be independent.”
Following the setback, Mr. Mabirizi renewed his application for mandatory bail, arguing that he has spent more than 60 days on remand without trial, which violates constitutional safeguards.
“The Constitution put a restriction on pre-trial remand. I pray you release me on mandatory bail and they will contact you when they are ready,” he submitted, adding that he had filed written submissions on May 15 and June 10, 2026, to which the prosecution had failed to respond.
He contended that under the law, mandatory bail proceedings should not be subjected to prolonged adversarial hearings.
“When I appeared before you, I applied for bail and the State said I would interfere with investigations, yet the Constitution says you cannot investigate beyond 60 days, and if that happens, release the accused,” Mr. Mabirizi argued.
State Attorney Allan Mucunguzi, who was holding brief for the lead prosecutor Joan Keko, requested an adjournment, stating that he was only instructed to receive the recusal ruling and was not fully acquainted with the case details.
“My instructions today were to receive a ruling for recusal. I am not in personal conduct of this case… I pray for an adjournment until my colleagues return and respond to this application,” Mr. Mucunguzi submitted.
Mr. Mabirizi vehemently opposed the request, citing court practice directions.
“The adjournment practice directions provide that counsel holding brief must appear with full authority to proceed. This is the fourth time this mandatory bail application has been brought to the State’s attention,” he countered.
In her final ruling of the day, Chief Magistrate Neumbe agreed with the prosecution, noting that the principles of natural justice required the State to be given a fair chance to reply.
“The wording of Section 76 of the Magistrates Courts Act does not bar this court from adjourning the case. This matter involves two parties and the rules of natural justice demand that the other party is accorded a chance to respond to the application,” Ms. Neumbe ruled.
The case was subsequently adjourned to July 10, 2026, for the State’s response to the mandatory bail application.
“I pray that it is the last adjournment,” Mr. Mabirizi remarked as he was led back to the court cells.
Male Mabirizi is a well-known legal activist in Uganda famous for filing private criminal prosecutions and constitutional petitions against high-profile government and judicial officials. This specific case stems from a long-running feud between Mabirizi and elements of the judiciary, which previously saw him serve an 18-month prison sentence for contempt of court passed by Justice Musa Ssekaana in 2022. The current charges involve alleged cyber harassment and offensive communication targeting top judicial officers via his social media handles.