The High Court has dismissed a petition contesting the election of Sheikh Shaban Mubaje as the Mufti of Uganda.
The petition was brought against the Uganda Muslim Supreme Council (UMSC) by Nsimbe Swaibu and Byansi Twayibu, two individuals who identified themselves as concerned Muslims.
The ruling, delivered by Justice Bernard Namanya, noted that there were significant legal and doctrinal barriers to the court’s intervention in the matter.
The case centred on the February 20, 2025, election of Sheikh Mubaje by the UMSC’s Majlis Al-Ulama and Joint Session.
The applicants argued that the election process violated multiple provisions of the UMSC’s 2022 Articles of Association, alleging procedural irregularities and seeking to quash the election.
They also requested an injunction to prevent Sheikh Mubaje’s swearing-in and an order to compel UMSC to follow due process in electing a new Mufti. The application was supported by an affidavit from Kasakya Musa, with respondents filing counter-affidavits denying the claims.
The UMSC, established in 1972 as a private, non-profit entity, represents over 9 million muslims in Uganda, according to the Interreligious Council of Uganda (IRC).
Sheikh Mubaje, who has served as Mufti since 2001, reached the age of 70 on March 12, 2025, prompting contention over his eligibility under the UMSC’s amended constitution, which sets an age limit for the Mufti’s office. The applicants claimed the election disregarded Articles 5 and 7, among others, governing the selection process.
Namanya’s ruling rested on three key grounds. First, he determined that UMSC, as a private body, is not subject to judicial review unless its functions are governmental in nature.
Citing precedents like R v. Panel on Take-overs and Mergers (1987) and Sheikh Ali Ssenyonga v. Sheikh Hussein Rajab Kakooza (1990), the court found no evidence that UMSC’s activities are interwoven with government regulation.
“Unlike the Datafin case, where a private body was integrated into a public regulatory framework, UMSC operates independently, regulating religious affairs without governmental oversight,” he ruled.
The court concluded that the government would not likely establish a public body to manage Muslim religious affairs, reinforcing UMSC’s private status.
Second, the court invoked the “religious question doctrine,” which restricts judicial intervention in disputes over religious doctrine or governance. The election of the Mufti, a spiritual leader, was deemed a matter best handled by Muslim leaders and the global Muslim community, not the judiciary.
Third, the court pointed to Article 28 of the UMSC Constitution, which mandates that disputes be resolved by the Muslim Arbitration and Conciliation Council (MAC).
Citing Uganda Muslim Supreme Council v. Babirye Yudaya (2024), the court ruled that the applicants should have pursued arbitration through the MAC before approaching the judiciary.
The dismissal, delivered electronically under Uganda’s 2025 e-filing rules, included a directive for each party to bear its own costs.
