Magistrate loses bid to block sexual harassment trial

Kampala, Uganda | THE INDEPENDENT | Civil Division High Court Judge Musa Ssekaana has dismissed with costs an application in which Grade One Magistrate Opio Belmos Ogwang wanted to stop his trial by the Judicial Service Commission for alleged sexual harassment.

Justice Ssekaana dismissed the application on Monday morning on grounds that it was filed outside the stipulated three month period for filing applications for judicial review. On April 2nd 2014, the then Chief Registrar Paul Gadenya Wolimbwa interdicted Opio following a complaint of sexual harassment lodged against him by a former female clerk at Kyenjonjo Chief Magistrate’s Court.

In his letter, Wolimbwa noted that the Judiciary Internal Disciplinary Committee found that the misconduct was grave. He also noted that this was the second time the Committee was handling sexual harassment cases against the magistrate. The first case was filed by a suspect in a criminal matter in Kumi district in 2011.

The committee gave Opio a warning and forwarded the matter to the Judicial Service Commission for action. Opio denied the charges against him in July 2015. He went on to petition the High Court in 2020 to quash the proceedings against him on grounds that the Judicial Service Commission Disciplinary has never concluded the matter and kept him on interdiction for almost eight years, which is illegal.

According to the Public Service Standing Orders, the mandatory period for interdiction is not more than six months. As such, Opio argued that the failure to conclude his case in six months is a violation of his right to a fair and expeditious hearing.

On his part, the Attorney General while relying on the affidavit of the Judicial Service Commission Secretary, Ronald Ssekagya asked court to dismiss the case on grounds that Opio contributed alot towards the delay of his case.

He explained that Opio was summoned several times to continue with his case in vain despite being followed up by phone calls. The Attorney General added that whereas Opio indicated that the complainant had withdrawn the case against him, it wasn’t true. He explained that the alleged withdrawal was based on false premises that the Judiciary Internal Disciplinary Committee had advised she withdraws it.

In his ruling, Justice Ssekaana said Opio ought to have filed his application three months after being dragged before the Commission, which wasn’t the case. “The applicant heavily contributed to the delay of the disciplinary proceedings by raising several preliminary objections and refusing to attend the disciplinary committee when he was the major contributory”, said Ssekaana.

In addition, the judge explained that the law allows the applicant alternative remedies under the Judicial Service Commission Act, which ought to have been exhausted before seeking remedies from other legislations.

*****

URN