In December 2021, High court judge Musa Ssekaana ordered (Daily) Monitor Publications together with the company’s managing director, editor in chief and the editor for Sunday Monitor and the reporter to compensate Bigirimana with Shs 450 million.
This was after the court found that the respondents published 15 articles between 2012 and 2017, which the judge described as twisted, skewed and crafted in a manner that portrayed Bigirimana as the key suspect in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) financial scam that was then under investigation.
Ssekaana’s decision rose from a successful defamation suit filed by Bigirimana in 2017, saying that between 2012 and 2015, the respondents continuously made numerous malicious, spiteful, untrue and defamatory publications against him in the Daily Monitor, Saturday Monitor, and the Sunday Monitor.
Although Bigirimana noted that 42 articles that were written around that time portrayed him as an embattled civil servant who made illicit expenditures on OPM funds, a person who thrives on State House’s pampering and patronage obstructing police investigations and above all, a liar, he was able to select 15 articles that he presented to court.
Some of the articles bore titles such as, “Auditors target Bigirimana in cash probe”; “Bigirimana’s wife acquires Shs 250m Mercedes Benz”; “Treasury Officials accuse OPM PS of covering money scam”; “MPs order government to remove Bigirimana”; “Denmark Warns of Aid Cut over OPM Scandal”; and “Corruption Ledger” among others.
According to the evidence before court, the said articles generally talked about how more than Shs 500 billion donor funds meant for northern Uganda post-war rehabilitation, allegedly got lost in the hands and under the watch of Bigirimana, who was the then permanent secretary of the Office of the Prime Minister.
Not happy with the articles, Bigirimana petitioned court, arguing that the said publications were false and intended to tarnish his name because the then director of public prosecutions justice Mike Chibita wrote a letter on May 28, 2019, clearing him and stating that in all the cases that have been prosecuted so far, his role was that of a complainant and prosecution witness.
As a result, Ssekaana issued a judgement in favour of Bigirimana and directed the respondents to compensate him. Daily Monitor immediately challenged the decision in the Court of Appeal and further filed an application for stay of execution in the High court.
Daily Monitor argued that their intended appeal raises matters of law and fact which include that the trial judge erred in law in failing to consider the defenses of justification and fair comment in respect of publications in reference to which they were raised.
They also accused the trial judge of issuing an excessive award which they say, in principle, constituted an error. According to Daily Monitor, Bigirimana has commenced the execution process including filing a bill of costs of Shs 68.8 million and the same is due for hearing before the registrar of the High court and might lead to the execution of the orders of the court.
In response, Bigirimana through his lawyers led by Godfrey Himbaza opposed the application saying that Daily Monitor was out of time to appeal and they have since asked the Court of Appeal to strike out notice of appeal.
Court heard that the intended appeal, which has already been filed and is pending judgement, lacks merit and has no probability of success. Bigirimana added that if the court is inclined to grant the stay of execution, Daily Monitor should be ordered to deposit the decretal sums in court before the execution is stayed.
In his decision on Friday afternoon, Ssekaana allowed the application saying the applicants sought a stay of execution contending that colossal amounts of money were awarded to Bigirimana, however, they are ready and willing to furnish security for due performance of the decree in form of an insurance guarantee from a reputable insurance company.
He added that an award from a competent court should be allowed to be executed unless a strong case is made out on cogent grounds, no stay should be granted.
“Since the appeal has already been heard by the Court of Appeal and it is awaiting judgment on notice, I would order a stay of execution on condition that the applicants furnish security for due performance of the decree in form of an insurance guarantee from a reputable insurance company within 21 days to court registrar”, said Ssekaana.
Ssekaana accordingly allowed the application on the said terms and ordered that each party shall bear its costs.
inarticle} inarticle}