Nsibambi, lawyers lock horns over political prisoner pardons

By Skika Reporter 
Outgoing Mawokota South MP Yusuf Nsibambi has clashed with lawyers over the handling of political prisoner pardons, accusing legal representatives and opposition leaders of frustrating efforts to secure releases through the presidential prerogative of mercy.

Speaking at the offices of the Uganda Law Society in Kampala on Thursday, Mr Nsibambi said many detainees could regain their freedom if they accepted to apologise or acknowledge that they were misled, but claimed that their own lawyers and political parties were discouraging such steps.

“Sometimes the President says, ‘Okay, he is a young man who was misled,’ and that is a reason for considering release. But this has to be after asking for forgiveness or admitting that you were misled because you cannot exercise the prerogative of mercy without admission,” he said.

Mr Nsibambi argued that it was unrealistic to expect government to apologise for imprisoning individuals who maintain their innocence while simultaneously seeking clemency. He urged lawyers and political actors to avoid becoming “roadblocks” in the constitutional exercise of mercy.

He singled out Joel Ssenyonyi, Erias Lukwago, Benjamin Katana and Ronald Balimwezo as promoting what he termed contrary instructions to detainees.

According to Mr Nsibambi, about 80 prisoners are currently lined up for release, while more than 120 others could soon benefit from pardons if the process is not hindered. He maintained that delays stem more from internal resistance among legal teams and political actors than from the Executive.

However, Mr Katana, who also serves as treasurer of the National Unity Platform (NUP), dismissed the claims as political rhetoric.

“The unfortunate bit is that asking someone who has not committed a crime to plead for forgiveness creates a criminal record on that individual that he committed whatever is claimed to have been done by him or her,” Mr Katana said.

He added that most political prisoners are represented by multiple law firms and remain in close contact with their lawyers. According to him, none of the detainees has been formally approached with a pardon offer requiring admission of guilt.

“As lawyers, we are ethically bound to advise our clients to maintain their innocence where they have not committed any offence,” he said, insisting that the assertion that lawyers are obstructing pardons does not reflect established legal practice.

Mr Nsibambi also used the platform to call for the return of Isaac Ssemakadde, the President of the Uganda Law Society, arguing that his absence has weakened advocacy for detainees.

“You cannot have such a brain out of the country on matters which are really principle-based. Lawyers are now like orphans and he should be a free man because the position he took is legally acceptable, but maybe politically not acceptable,” Mr Nsibambi said.

He revealed that he had engaged several members of the Executive regarding Mr Ssemakadde’s situation and vowed to continue pressing for his return.

Beyond the pardon debate, Mr Nsibambi criticised political parties that operate without registered constitutions or fail to fill positions in accordance with governance structures. He suggested that such entities should undergo review by the Uganda Law Society to ensure compliance with the rule of law.

“All these political parties must be subjected to a Law Society review because we are the eyes of the nation when it comes to the rule of law,” he said, adding that parties funded by taxpayers must adhere to formal legal frameworks rather than function informally.

Mr Nsibambi, the Mawokota South MP and former deputy president for the Central Region of the Forum for Democratic Change, officially defected to the National Resistance Movement on February 18. He was received at the ruling party headquarters in Kampala by its First Vice Chairperson (Female), Anita Annet Among.

His remarks have since sparked debate within legal and political circles, highlighting the tension between legal principle and political pragmatism in addressing the fate of political detainees.