A section of lawyers has criticized a High Court order that halted the execution of a decision by the legal profession’s disciplinary body to remove Richard Buzibira from the roll of advocates.
The lawyers argue that Buzibira used the wrong procedure to challenge the Law Council’s decision and order, thereby misleading the judge into issuing what they describe as an erroneous order.
In a ruling delivered on May 13, 2026, the Law Council Disciplinary Committee struck Buzibira off the roll of advocates after finding him guilty of professional misconduct.
Buzibira was also ordered to surrender his practising certificate to the Chief Registrar.
“We have found that the respondent (Buzibira) committed professional misconduct involving fraud and negligence. The respondent’s actions caused substantial loss and various forms of inconvenience. In our view, the conduct was grave, as many people, including the government, were affected,” ruled the committee chaired by Moses Mushabebe Nabende.
The other committee members were Dr Pamela Tibihikirra-Kalyegira and Abubaker Ssekanjako.
However, High Court Judge Simon Peter Kinobe of the Civil Division later issued an order staying the enforcement of the Law Council’s decision.
“The execution of all orders of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Council in LCD No. 94 of 2017 is hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 0007 of 2026,” the court order reads.
The lawyers maintain that although Buzibira has a right of appeal, he filed the matter against the wrong parties, rendering the appeal defective.
According to them, the Law Council is a quasi-judicial body that cannot be sued directly because it falls under the office of the Attorney General. They also argue that Pastor Daniel Walugembe was merely a witness in the proceedings.
“The judge entertained an irregular application because it was filed against the wrong parties. Furthermore, the memorandum of appeal was never served on the parties as required by law,” the lawyers state.
Under the Advocates Act, Cap. 295, the Law Council does not possess separate corporate legal personality.
The lawyers are now calling on the Attorney General to take over the conduct of the matter or take any other necessary steps to safeguard the interests of justice and ensure that the proceedings are conducted in accordance with the law.
When contacted, Pastor Walugembe declined to comment, saying he was unaware of the court order that stayed the implementation of the decision striking Buzibira off the roll of advocates.
In its ruling, the disciplinary committee noted that public resources had been wasted through litigation and compensation payments that could have been avoided had the lawyer acted professionally.
“We found the complainant’s evidence to be coherent, consistent, plausible and more believable. We find that the presentation of the forged documents was intended to facilitate fraudulent acts. We find that fraudulent acts were indeed committed, and we are convinced that the respondent is liable for them,” the disciplinary decision states.
The decision followed a successful complaint filed by Pastor Daniel Walugembe, who accused Buzibira of forging instructions and powers of attorney purportedly issued by Sunday Joseph. Walugembe alleged that Buzibira falsely claimed he had been instructed to process payments arising from a land sale involving the Uganda Land Commission.
Buzibira has since challenged the disciplinary committee’s decision before the Civil Division of the High Court. The appeal is pending hearing and determination by a panel of three judges.
