The High Court of Uganda (civil division) has issued a temporary injunction against former minister of ethics and integrity, Miria Matembe, restraining her from any further utterances towards the person of Beti Kamya, the Inspector of Government.
The ruling follows a suit filed by Beti Kamya through her lawyer Ivan Okuda from M/S Anguria & Co. Advocates, against Matembe, seeking orders of court that she (Matembe) be declared to have published or caused to be published defamatory statements against the plaintiff.
She further asked to be awarded general damages and a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further publication of defamatory statements against her.
The applicant also filed an application seeking orders of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from uttering, broadcasting and publishing prejudicial, false, malicious and defamatory statements against the applicant in print, online, broadcast media and public platforms in Uganda and overseas, and to the general public, until the foregoing case vide Civil Suit No.60 of 2022 is disposed of by the same court.
Kamya also asked for costs from Matembe who was represented by Newmark Advocates.
She (Kamya) told court that she occupies a constitutional office established by the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda with a responsibility of eliminating corruption, abuse of authority and public office, and the applicant’s execution of this mandate requires public faith, confidence and trust in the IGG.
She noted that the execution of this mandate was at a risk of being undermined by the respondent who had made it her part time job and business to ridicule condemn, defame, despise and lampoon the applicant whenever opportunity presented itself, thereby eroding public trust, confidence in the office holder and decimating her credibility among the right thinking members of the public, and consequently affecting her execution of constitutional mandate.
She noted that court owes a duty of care to the applicant, general public and the Government of Uganda to protect the integrity of the state institutions when they are under attack from malicious, angry, bitter, power-hungry and frustrated, career-stranded, uncultured, uncouth, busy-body politicians who resort to defamation to destroy public confidence, trust in and credibility of state institutions and public office holders as part of ideologically bankrupt, opportunistic, unprincipled and obscurantist political activism aimed at tainting the image of the Government and His Excellency the President of the Republic of Uganda (in his capacity as the country celebrated applicants appointing authority) by continually making false, malicious and defamatory attacks against public office holders such as the applicant while disguising such malice, evil, intentions, hatred and character assassination campaign as the exercise of freedom of speech and expression.
She added, “it is just equitable, fair and in the interest of justice, the greater public good as well as the interest of the Uganda state that the application be granted to enable the applicant execute her constitutional mandate as IGG without being bogged down by a malicious, bitter-with the world, power hungry, belligerent, insolent, desperate, disrespectful, ill-mannered, uncultured, arrogant, hateful and career-stranded and frustrated politician desperately determined to raise her public profile and relevance in the media by embarking on a nefarious character assassination campaign against the applicant and His Excellency the President…”
However, the respondent (Matembe), opposed the application and filed an affidavit in reply deponed by herself.
She stated thus; the application is misconceived, frivolous, vexatious and tainted with falsehoods which should be dismissed with costs.
Matembe argued that her statements are opinions, expressions and beliefs she holds as an individual and the same should not be precluded from the protection of court simply because the applicant believes they are false, controversial or unpleasant.
Adding, “That court should facilitate a free space to express her views even when they are opposed to or objected to by the society including the applicant.”
However, Karemani Jamson, the High Court (Civil) Deputy Regisrar, argued that according to the affidavit of the respondent in reply, she does not deny making the statements in issue but claims that the statements are true, honest and statements of opinion and belief.
Karemani noted that this is subject to be considered at the hearing of the main case, adding, “At the moment I find that there is no private/public interest conflict existing in granting the order sought. Applicant has established the continued danger of the continued publication of the matters complained of. There is equally no proof that any restraint against the respondent from making further statements about the applicant will curtail her freedom of speech as alleged.”
He revealed in his finding that this is a clear case where a temporary injunction can be issued.
“This application is allowed with orders that: a temporary injunction is issued against the respondent restraining her from any further uttering, broadcasting and publication of any statements about the applicant in any form and on any forum until the main application is disposed of. The costs of this application will abide the outcome of the main suit,” he ruled.