Human rights activist and UNAIDS Executive Director Winnie Byanyima has raised concerns over judicial independence following the swearing-in of Uganda’s new Chief Justice, Justice Flavian Zeija, at President Yoweri Museveni’s private farm in Kisozi.
In a statement shared on X, Byanyima questioned both the venue and symbolism of the ceremony, arguing that it blurred the line between state institutions and the President’s private family space.
“Surely the Chief Justice should have been sworn in at State House in the presence of his wife and children,” Byanyima wrote. “Here, he looks like a guest at the private home of President Museveni. Is there a blurring of state and family here?”
She added that such symbolism matters deeply for public confidence in the judiciary, especially given Uganda’s constitutional history.
“Let me hope that at least, there will be a public ceremony at the Supreme Court building to symbolise the independence of our judiciary — as we established it in the 1995 Constitution,” she said.
Byanyima’s remarks echoed growing public debate sparked by images and reports of the ceremony, which took place at President Museveni’s farm rather than a formal state venue.
Earlier, political commentator Tumukunde Joshua also criticised the swearing-in, describing it as unprecedented and troubling.
“I have never seen in any country a Chief Justice sworn in at a president’s private farm,” Tumukunde said. “The swearing-in of Uganda’s Chief Justice, Justice Flavian Zeija, at President Museveni’s farm in Kisozi raises serious concerns about judicial independence. Ugandans must wake up.”
The controversy has reignited longstanding concerns among legal scholars, opposition figures, and civil society actors about the separation of powers and the perceived closeness between the executive and the judiciary.
Under Uganda’s Constitution, judicial independence is a cornerstone of democratic governance, intended to ensure that courts operate free from influence by the executive or political actors.
As debate continues, attention has turned to whether a subsequent public ceremony at the Supreme Court will be held, and whether the Judiciary will issue clarification on the choice of venue for the Chief Justice’s swearing-in.
