The High Court has temporarily halted the implementation of disciplinary orders issued by the Law Council against lawyer Richard Buzibira.
Justice Simon Peter Kinobe of the Civil Division of the High Court issued the orders on Monday, staying the execution of the Law Council Disciplinary Committee’s decision that had struck Buzibira off the roll of advocates.
“The execution of all orders of the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Council in LCD Number 94 of 2017 are hereby stayed pending the hearing and determination of Miscellaneous Appeal Number 0007 of 2026,” the court order reads in part.
The orders arise from an appeal filed by Buzibira challenging the decision of the disciplinary committee.
On May 13, 2026, the Law Council Disciplinary Committee struck Buzibira off the roll of advocates over allegations of professional misconduct.
The disciplinary orders, which have now been suspended, included barring him from legal practice, directing him to pay Shs10 million to the complainant, Pastor Daniel Walugembe, as well as legal costs incurred in the matter and an additional Shs2 million payable to the council as costs.
According to court documents, Buzibira argues that the disciplinary process violated his right to a fair hearing.
In his sworn statement before court, the lawyer contends that he was neither given an opportunity to testify in his defence nor allowed to cross-examine the complainant before the committee reached its decision.
“I was neither given an opportunity to be heard in my defence nor allowed to cross-examine the respondent on all allegations made by him before the committee decision was made,” Buzibira stated in his affidavit.
He further argued that neither he nor his lawyers were served with hearing notes relating to proceedings conducted in his absence.
Buzibira also challenged the committee’s reliance on a police report, arguing that the document was admitted without being formally presented by its author or subjected to cross-examination.
“The Disciplinary Committee based its decision on a report whose author did not tender it before the committee and whose contents had never been tested through cross-examination before any court,” the affidavit states.
He additionally questioned the committee’s reliance on a consent judgment involving the complainant and another individual identified as Sunday Joseph, arguing that neither the Ministry nor the Uganda Land Commission were parties to that consent judgment.
The appeal is expected to be heard and determined by a panel of three High Court judges who are yet to be appointed.
