By Stephen Mutinyu, Solicitor General, Inzu Ya Masaba (IYM)
6th April, 2026
Recent developments surrounding the leadership of the Bamasaba cultural institution and the activities of Inzu Ya Masaba (IYM) have generated public confusion, largely driven by misinterpretations of a court administrative order and recent actions attributed to Mr. Stephen Masiga, which appear to extend the scope of that order beyond its clear legal limits, including attempts to caution the media and engage security agencies.
It is therefore necessary to clarify the legal position, not only to defend the integrity of IYM, but also to reaffirm the constitutional rights of the Bamasaba people, while maintaining full respect for the authority of the court.
The court order did not create a permanent ban
The administrative order issued by the High Court in Mbale was clear in both scope and duration. It restrained certain respondents from acting under the name “Inzu Ya Masaba” and from installing a cultural leader for a period of three days pending the hearing of an application for interim injunction .
This is critical.
The order was:
• Temporary in nature
• Limited to three days
• Directed at specific respondents, not the entire Bamasaba community
Once the three-day period elapsed, the order automatically lapsed by operation of law, unless extended or replaced by a substantive court order.
The subsequent attempt to extend the order on the 24th was overtaken by events, as the election had already taken place on the 23rd after the expiry of the initial restraint.
In law, one cannot restrain what has already lawfully occurred after the lapse of a temporary order.
The election was not in contempt of court
It has been suggested that the election of Umukuka IV was conducted in violation of a court order. This is incorrect for two reasons.
First, the election occurred after the expiry of the three-day administrative order. There was therefore no subsisting legal restraint at the time.
Second, the individuals who participated in the election were not parties to the suit, nor were they agents of the respondents named in the order.
In law, court orders bind parties to the proceedings and their agents or persons acting under their authority. They do not bind the entire public or a cultural community acting independently of the named parties.
To suggest otherwise is to expand the scope of judicial orders beyond their intended legal reach.
Misuse of the court process to intimidate the public
Of concern is the emerging pattern in which the administrative order is being referenced in a manner that may create the impression of broader restrictions than those expressly issued by the court. This includes communications attributed to Mr. Stephen Masiga cautioning media houses and engaging security agencies on the basis of that order.
With respect, it would be appropriate for any party asserting that journalists are barred from reporting on matters relating to Inzu Ya Masaba to point to the specific provision of the order that imposes such a restriction. I have not seen such a provision in the court order. It's just Mr. Masiga thinking aloud.
The order itself did not:
• Dissolve Inzu Ya Masaba
• Stop the media from reporting on the matter
• Prohibit the practice of Bamasaba culture
• Grant exclusive cultural authority to Umukuka Wa Bugisu
• Criminalise independent cultural organization
• Stop Umukuka IV from being installed as a cultural leaders since he was not party to the suit
It merely imposed a temporary procedural restraint on specific respondents.
The Constitution of Uganda is clear. Bamasaaba like all Ugandans have the right to practice their culture, to associate freely, and to participate in cultural life without unlawful interference. Mr. Masika should desist from intimidating Bamasaba and forcing alligience to Umukuka wa Bugisu.
No administrative order can extinguish these constitutional rights unless expressly and lawfully stated.
The courts must not be perceived as instruments to silence cultural expression, to intimidate journalists, or to restrict lawful community organisation.
Conclusion
The legal position remains clear.
· The administrative order was temporary and has lapsed.
· The election was not conducted in contempt of court.
· Inzu Ya Masaba continues to operate within the law.
· The Bamasaba people retain their constitutional right to practice and organise their culture.
Any narrative suggesting otherwise should be carefully examined against the actual wording of the court order, not flawed individual interpretation.
Stephen Mutinyu-Solicitor General-Inzu Ya Masaba (IYM)
Posts
0 Comments