Backlog and the future of Legal practice!

I kind of request you to share it with your colleagues who are who who are supposed to have joined the space. We may be starting in the next 5 minutes.

We shall use this time to share the the link to the space to our colleagues so that they can join this amazing organization tonight. Thank you. We are getting next 5 minutes as of now. Request you to share the link with the colleagues who are yet looking from hand but we have some network and we'll be using this link. Thank you so much everyone who has joined us today. I understand you're trying to join in as a speaker already sent the invite to speak. Yeah.

So ladies and gentlemen, we have once again I welcome you this eth episode of the service commission conversations. I thank you for all of all of them who who have been with us since the first episode and I welcome you this episode of the service commission conversations. Ladies and gentlemen, justice has been rigged by this law and we cannot just keep looking on at the continues and because nobody can and no one will stop it. We are here once again on this eth episode of the service commission.

Due to case backlog, the temple of justice has become a temple of injustice. Our codes are being followed by the supposed hand and addressing. So we need to address this where our follow and addressing backing the system. So we are not simply but I understand we have so far had seven exos of Wonderful audience joining us every Wednesday at 7 p.m. is here another day on our YouTube channel watching live on the YouTube channel and my name is together our user space and blessings from Ginger and Secretary of Ginger for quite a number of years for 4 years as a legal cler. I have found memories of the time I was working there. I was a law and I used to eat money for commission. I hate the man understanding. Today we'll be sharing with us how how the experiences still region. I'm super host of the I'm done. Some kind of glimber shows the energy that is needed but he also shows and it's good um Eddie is here Eddie Angle who is the secretary who is the actually officially is the council member for Eastern challenge we is we uh being asked when is the date? We need our debates. We need our election.

The choice members of the law society have and the opportunity they have is incredible and it's constitutional and it's democratic and it's proper acceptable that for so long the hands of our democracy have been tied. The hopes of our people have been set back and uh this um is um something that we are certainly working on. On our part, we've we were not happy with the decision which came out of the high court. We filed in the high court. I mean we filed in the court of appeal and we shall be pursuing remedies there. But uh I am humbled when you when you said 8 weeks. I have not actually having this conversation for eight weeks and uh it is an absolutely incredible conversation and I am so honored and humbled that whatever has happened, whatever the delay has caused, whatever injustice and inefficiency and discouragement it has caused, I'm happy has given us an opportunity to have a full debate with colleagues about what's happening in our courts and what's happening in our practice and what's happening to our people who are clients. So, thank you for that. And I'm also very happy to have Eddie here and also to have Humphrey. I don't know if Humphrey has um been able to to get on. I also was having challenges getting on. I was able to overcome mine. I hope that Humphrey you can overcome yours. For those who don't know is um council member for the eastern for the gond society but he's the energy and the engine for the stuff that's happening in Aisha he is the um he's beats like the beat of a radical new bar it beats with the rhythm of and have you here Eddie and Yeah, welcome. Conversation.

Now for us even from where we are coming from uh we are deeply approved by the state of our courts. The two cannot indeed execute as effectively even if he leads us honorably. That we are seeking to stay orders issued against him and the courts and the court are just sitting with their hands and bothered indifferent about the situation. The kids are basic story uh the kamong situation uh the ones that were before the court marshall and many other situations are stories that we've been trying to highlight to indicate the plight within the court system. Uh sadly sadly those conversations there haven't been heard enough and when these spaces here occur for us to raise those voices raise those concerns we must come and I am indeed pleased to be part of this conversation I have a lot of thoughts to share my personal experiences I hope I can just pour them out I am thankful to Ellison my brother uh when you began the slogan no one can stop gay. I I think I first uh caught on onto it when we were waiting for the ruling from uh the high court on on the injunction and it was called the injunction waiting party and we were waiting and indeed the we are playing and the hearts of the members we are beating those beats continue the songs and the regga tune has never stopped. Thank you. But there's one there's one issue of backlog which I think you you you forgot to address the issue of Alfred's wife. Maybe maybe it should be addressed here that at least at this space we have mission best things and backlog is cleared. Now I met recently I met Alfred. I met him recently in in Bali and excited and he was walking around and indeed we had a positive discussion. Uh we shall find the wife. We shall find a wife. He he set the stakes so high. Uh his conditions were a bit high. Uh but indeed we shall meet those standards. He will have a wife. So, so in that case the the backlog is being caused by the bleeding and the standards is setting the prayers he's making.

Um, I don't know if Humphrey has gotten on yet but maybe we can um we can begin with maybe we can start with with you Eddie. Yes. And um first of all I think many people know you so maybe as a first introductory question is while people may know you maybe you can tell us more about Edin Angulo. What made you think of joining the leadership of the law society? What makes you tick? What makes your heart beat faster? Apart of course from helping Alfred to solve his very serious challenge. Yeah. Tell us about yourself.

Now uh when I joined the practice somehow I joined much much earlier than uh some of my other colleagues but also I joined at a lower level joined as cler and uh office messengers running around documents here and there uh many many years back but I don't want to skip so so far ahead but what I want to draw from that experience is that we go to witness firsthand the apathy in the court system. We got to witness firsthand uh how corruption indeed can undermine justice, how rights of individuals are neglected, disregarded. Uh and how the indifference of the court is indeed a very heavy price to pay. Uh times when you would go through our different our different court journeys, you'd really see how the individual and uh let me say the Montawans would struggle with seeking recourse before a court of law. Now many of those situations began to shape my idea of what the practice should be uh of what even we should be able to experience, what the court should be like. And when we began now to practice, we really felt that we should make a difference. Uh we should impact, we should reverse the tide. Uh so when we began to practice, I remember I remember I remember when I when I got my first PC, I quickly uh was a partner in my first year of enrollment. Uh one of my colleagues whom I'd worked with really felt that indeed you can make a meaningful contribution. Join me as a as partner. But the ordeal of course of a young advocate uh and even whether you can able negotiate with a senior colleague uh for favorable terms uh is a telling story of every other advocate joining the the practice. Now beyond even the shortfalls within the law the practice was increasingly struggling. Ellison lawyers were struggling uh mostly the young lawyers lawyers were burdened by debt we people would wear suits but would struggle with meeting basic necessities now it began to disturb me and I felt this can't be us for uh five or 10 years now in the regions uh we don't even observe the advocate rules on payments uh for our court fees and the rest people will just go with as little as possible. Now that is what again even caused a bigger problem. Now you will observe in our further conversations uh even when I met the president when he was bidding for his ULs presidency he ran on a strong agenda of improving members welfare and that was by by by by uh having our statuto provisions modified to fit into the current times. Now those conversations began to occur. Those discussions began to occur and they began to really uh make me uncomfortable where I was. Uh seeing our colleagues struggle made me uncomfortable. Uh fast forward I sit down with the president uh before his his his nomination and when he comes and uh we discuss what do we do about the rule of law? What do we do about the ongoings in society? What do we do uh do we go on to fold our hands? Do we go on to ignore uh the impunity, the corruption, the abuse of of of rules and procedure? What do we do? And in in in in in asking those questions, there is when we began to now invent what is the radical new ideology and the60 vision. Now as a matter of fact uh from that conversation uh is where we designed an agenda that we are now fronting under the radical new bar and it's what we are pushing forward. So when you ask me what brought us here, it was largely and majorly the plight of our people, those that we serve, those we represent, the apathy, the difficulties, the over overbearing burdens of the court system, bearing on the individual, bearing on the citizens and no recourse is being offered at the court or at any other fora. So I'll go on I think discussing as we shall as we carry on but I think if you ask me a question of who I who who am I when I sent you my proper I said we are judicial reform activists indeed we are pushing for judicial reform uh and we are going to dedicate and devote as much energy that we have within ourselves under the radical new bar to change the current status quo. Things must change.

From your conversation, you realize basically the temple of justice is now becoming a temple of injustice because of the case delays. And you say if if if the rights of for us who are bit privileged can be stepped on. Now you can imagine the rates of the common man. When you say that I imagined there are now eight pending cases involving US and maybe president and and if the rights of such who are let me say privilege can be step to now you can imagine the common man now from your experience I realize you have been working with the the low income earners or the on the ground let me say so I would like to get from you from your experience what do you think is the primary cause of the past case backlog in Uganda's jud system.

Well, uh thank you Alfred. Uh I think backlog for us is a song that has been sung for many years. It is an old tune. I think it has even lost even the policies being addressed uh trying to offer recourse. They all songs uh but we haven't gotten to understand what is the problem exactly. Uh for me backlog is stemming from our statutes and our president calls these colonial enactments that have led us to where we are today. If you look at our criminal uh criminal laws for instance, if I may just start from criminal procedure when Kiza Bas was charged before was charged before uh now the civilian courts number of persons were celebrating and they were happy that indeed now uh it is the right forum it's the right court but you'll discover that uh the principles on committ uh uh one of those policies that indeed occasion or even uh are the cause leading cause of of backlog. You discover that now because of the need to present someone before a court lacking jury. Present someone before. Requires that before you can even even commence someone even before commence proceedings there must be a session set up. Sessions require that a judge must designate uh a number of files. They must designate assessors. They must they must speak advocates on set brief. Must determine what shall happen in a given session before they can begin to present you. Now the average waiting time for one to be on a session is between 5 to 8 years. 5 to 8 years of waiting is a big big problem. These are pre-trial penalties that right now why even you have a lot of anger from R&B and the president uh when when when a bordo charges the kisumu 36 persons with a capital offense she is indeed condemning them to the burdens of our legislation that they must go through committ that they must wait for a session that they must now uh the is for them they bail because of their persistence. But there are other persons that are unable to apply for bail under our bail legislation right now. Uh if you cannot prove illness or advanced age or those rather serious grounds to justify the grant of bail, you can never be released. Now for the younger and the healthy people under 35, healthy, you've fed well, you're eating healthy. Once they arrest you and they detain you in a capital offense, you can't obtain bail because you can't prove medical grounds. You can't prove advanced age. Uh because indeed they say that your health and you're able to endure the prison conditions. Now how is that even proposed even fair? But because of sessions we are forced to wait. Then you add on to that assessors another relic from back in the day. We've kept on saying assessors need to be removed from our legislation. They must we must repeal the laws uh uh introducing assessors. The basic principle is that assessors were set up then to advise uh the foreign judges on on on our customs and our local practices. Now it's our judges where I come from in Bali where I come from the judges are aisu they are from the region. Now how does an assessor uh sit by and confidently also advise a judge on his own customs, his own practices and we are saying we cannot commence a session because there's no assessor or because we must appoint assessors. These impediments here are what indeed result in the backlog we experience. For someone to wait for 5 to 8 years because they waiting for session is a pre-trial penalty. It is illegal. It is improper. Uh it shouldn't be happening in this current day and age. Uh that is under our statute. There's so much I can say. uh but our second for me I think I think I think our second biggest cause of backlog is in the judicial mentality of unaccountability uh even now with the new act uh a judge shall be paid until long after retirement uh they'll go on to earn so there is no sense of accountability there is no sense of servanthood. Uh we always say this in the east that the titles are being abused. uh having by calling someone my lord or your worship there is a I think the the titles uh get to the heads of our judicial officers and they develop a sense of unaccountability that you'll even have to appreciate them and thank them where a decision is baseless or is without merit uh through obliging through uh most obliged most obliging whenever whenever Whenever they make a decision, it was being said one time in one of the spaces that we even thank them for bad decisions. Now you are seeing an obvious injustice but you must thank judic judicial officer for what they have done. The other day uh in I took on an appeal of of a child who is aged 14 years. She's a girl. Uh the girl was uh charged with defilement. Now she was sentenced she was sentenced to a sum uh to a term of two years. Now this this girl is at the time of the sentence she uh she was am I am I am I am I'm being heard am I on yes I'll tell you a story of one of my own own experiences a child is a child 14 years old she's 8 months pregnant uh I keep on going off I hope I'm not Everyone is now muted. Can you hear me now? No. Okay. Now I'm on. Yes. Uh I was uh please forgive the network. Uh it is one of those issues that occurs with technology. But I was giving an experience uh of of just two two days ago I took on a new matter of of of of a girl who had been uh sentenced. She she's a 14year-old child. Uh she was charged with defilement. uh at the time of her sentence she was 8 months pregnant and she was now that is illegal for starters because of the age uh because of the mitigating factors uh I was being told by the remand home that they don't have means of keeping the child because she's she she's a first time mother she's supposed to believe her so we began to run a different course to try and secure bail. But this goes to tell you that even where there is no uh legal basis. Uh our colonial system has required us to oblige and to and to and and to be thankful even for what I would regard as bad judgments. When we reviewed the Supreme Court judgment of Kabazer Guka uh we felt that indeed the Supreme Court had given with one hand and taken with the other and why it can't even be enforced now is because of the lacunas in that decision. Uh people's rights have been violated they going to be violated and we are having a court seated uh with arms folded and bothered. There is really need for concern. If we can't be empathetic, then let's sympathize with our people. So those those for me would be the leading causes for backlog. If we sort out those two, if we sort out our statutes, if we sort out our legislation and if we reintroduce a sense of accountability, the bang the table mentality when we push the Supreme Court to deliver the court marshal judgment, it was one of the avenues to demand judicial accountability. And we've kept on saying radical nuba won't apologize when it comes to demanding for what is rightfully ours. We won't even thank and plead for what is rightfully ours. I think even even even the the title plead referring to lawyers even also maybe uh would reduce our relevance. We must demand for rights to plead suggests that uh as though you're going before a god and a most holy place and you use the entities of my lord. The bench isn't helping us. The bench is largely a public servant. These are public servants, glorified public servants. They should serve the interests of the country. On a different day, in a different place, in a different time, if these were elective positions, none of them would be returned. But because of how they have uh covered up themselves in colonial establishments, they feel they untouchable. The system can't touch them. Uh they can't be sanctioned. You'll observe even recently when we were raising complaints about uh members of the bench all those who are ignored uh and that is why JC for us is an important place the radical surgery is critical we are going to push this agenda because without this surgery being done we can't talk about justice we can't talk about rule of law we can't talk about accountability it stems from the head and until the head is addressed uh everything else would fall by the wayside. Yes, Merci, I understand you're on call. Please, the audience needs to listen to you and you could be having some question before we proceed to maybe another question from Mr.

Can you hear us? Yes, we can. Yes, we can. My question is really along the lines of keeping in mind that an issue that you know it's in the way you see as a quick alternative or a quick option in light of what the judiciary is already trying to appoint more [Music] judges. Do you think that these approaches are are supporting um our our existing laws? Civil sessions in Ginger. Uh we had been for a long time demanding that the court of appeal walks out of it is shelter and come and serve the public and the regions. uh we had the first session in Ginger about two weeks ago. Uh I was having matters coming up in the session and I told the DCG what I even to

Repeat now is that their innovations and their inventions are not well thought out. They are coming extremely late. That's the first thing that all meaning—all, all meaning—is lost. Uh, or whatever they intend to achieve is lost because of how they're approaching this whole situation.

For example, uh, in that session there, I was having a case, an appeal, uh, which was 10 years old. This is an appeal; just the trial had lasted for about 5 years. This is about 15 years average that someone is pursuing a land dispute. It can't be meaningful that even if you come with your platoon of judicial officers and say, now we are having a—we're having a session—it doesn't really represent you as indeed being concerned about the plight of what is going on. Ten years for you to sit by unbothered in an office is a long time.

Now the same cycle continues. Uh, we had the same DCJ in Bali, and then, uh, then we were launching—while launching the digital system—and they invited one of the inmates to enter a plea bargain. Now he's making a plea bargain—an agreement—8 years after he was charged; 8 years after that is as long as his sentence would more or less be. And we are unbothered, and I asked—even I asked them then—why are we clapping about these things? How do we clap? How do we clap that we are launching a system? Okay. Yes, it is a good system. But, uh, the person who is saying the terms of the plea bargain are agreeable to him has already served 8 years and he's already been condemned. He has suffered a pre-trial penalty and he's being released—to—and even beyond the system when they're releasing you after that length of time. There is no thought on compensation. Uh, there is no thought of how do we even rehabilitate someone who is released, and what is even more shocking is that, uh, the accused person celebrates and feels that indeed I've been released, uh, or maybe they have had my case. This is how bad things are—that even us, we don't know what is due to us; we feel we are being rewarded by sessions; we feel we are being rewarded by hearings. These are rights under the law that if the court cannot try your case expeditiously, they should release you. If they hold you beyond then, then they should pay you indemnity, or they should compensate for whatever damages you have suffered.

But when we talk about these policies being mooted, uh, in my opinion, they are—I would say—in bad faith. It is just, I think, to slap us in the face. These are slaps that, uh, to say the least, are dishonest, because I've been in these plea bargains, and when they put something before you 8 years after—8 years after—uh, honestly, uh, and they are maybe saying you can maybe spend two, two more years, then you're released; you'll take it. There is a lot of coercion; it is unduly influ—there's undue influence, uh, upon the mind of the accused person that you will just accept what is being presented because the system has already, uh, pressed you from all sides, all angles. You've been burdened, uh, by the penalty, and you walk out of there and, uh, people are clapping that indeed there is justice in this country. We're doing badly. It is extremely, extremely terrible, and watch the space for Kiza Bas's situation. The bit with him, of course, is that there will be a bit of noise. He will not maybe last that long, but just watch the space. Uh, he's going to highlight where we are failing.

That—me, I would even think that if you would have wanted a trial, uh, doing so in the civilian courts is even worse. The civilian courts, uh, they—they—how do I say it? Civilian courts, unlike the court marshal where it was illegal for them to indeed impose these burdens, civilian courts burden you lawfully—that they will mention your case lawfully because it's in the law. The civilian courts will have you wait for a session because it's—it's in the law. You're going through committal; you're—you're waiting, and it—it's lawful that now you can't say I'm under illegal detention. It's lawful, and they won't even pay you because the law has permitted them to treat you in that manner. Some things really need to change. They must change yesterday.

Uh, let me also say one more thing about mediation, and for me, this is where—where—where I disagree with the proponents of mediation. Yes, I agree in one way that it is well intentioned, and in many ways it is a mechanism of resolving disputes—disputes quickly—but why should we front a process that indeed undermines litigation—undermines the legal system? We're telling you, settle your case because you won't take 5 years. Why is that the norm? Why can't I settle my case because the terms aren't agreeable to me? The proposal is sensible. The figures are—are within what I would permit. But the biggest proponent of mediation is the shortfalls in the system. And it is even sad that this is being highlighted by the bench. It is the bench who are saying we are unable and we are failing, uh, so we cannot attend to your matter. We can't give you a quick trial. But why is that? Why is that the case? Why don't we find solutions to deal with that problem there? Why are we, uh, highlighting and offering, uh, a less—a lesser proposal—that, for instance, if you would have received this much, if they've abused my rights, let the courts pronounce, uh, on that abuse there. What people don't know is that through litigation, uh, we set the terms that we exist in—community, society now is able to understand if you act in this manner here, there is this penalty. But when we choose to have it done quietly, the anarchy and the chaos remains. The situation is unaddressed, which, for me, is a big, big issue that if at all—if at all—if the court wants even the advocates to, uh, uh, back them on this issue here, uh, let it be a better option, not a lesser evil. Let it be a better option, not a lesser evil. So, so, so in my honest view, many of these proposals aren't in the best faith, and now the judges, uh, who are pushing for mediation, uh, for me, this is my honest—this is my individual opinion—uh, the bench are trying to retain a level of relevance beyond retirement. The persons who are pushing for, uh, um, indeed these setups are the ones who are in their later years and they want to say that they are able to offer a—a meaningful alternative to the, uh, court process. Let, uh, the bench and the proponents of these proceedings, uh, sort out the mess at the court. Let us accord timely justice. Let us accord meaningful justice. Let us, uh, cast out judicial impunity. Let us cast out corruption. Then we will have a meaningful and proper society. But they want to—they want to—they want to—they want to retain—they want to retain—and this is because they don't want to come back to the bar. We keep on saying, uh, when you serve at the bench and you retire, the bar is your destination. Return to the bar. Let us practice at the bar. You have—you have experience in whatever levels you've served at the Supreme Court. Return to the bar. Let us now litigate and, uh, again reshape the scope of jurisprudence, but they want to go and hide behind the table, maintain the title of "My Lord," uh, but negotiate—negotiate outcomes. I strongly think that, uh, it is not well intentioned. Uh, if—if—if—if the bench would empower the bar and empower the systems of litigation, we would go so far.

That was quite insightful. Yes. Mercy. And that the different creative ways that the judiciary is trying to implement are not solving the core issue, which is the law, and also the fact that it's not timely—that it's already lit. What does justice look like for an ordinary citizen—one of your clients? Uh, with the ongoing state in which the bench is treating the bar, it's even more dire. Uh, we keep on saying that the bar is the voice of the public. The public are the ones that are indeed the seekers of justice. You can't look out the bar. You can't deny or prevent the bar from litigating or appearing in matters. Now why I say it is dire is—and this is said by the president often—he calls, uh, them big egos—that the egos of the members of the bench have clouded indeed the purpose of the appointments; they have clouded, uh, why indeed they are serving this country. I would say it again: these are public servants. These are public servants. We must bang the table. We must, uh, redirect our—the course of our jurisprudence. Why our president says—and why even we say—that there won't be an apology, uh, for these demands is because indeed our rights under the law—the titles of their lordships [Music]—and we are presenting our rights; they should attend to those rights and not expect that—or think—that they are rewarding us for what is due to us. So mercy over anyone standing in our way because indeed there is no turning back. Uh, when Edison here says that no one can stop—we intend to bang the table at the JC—we are going to meet his lordship, sing Giza there, and indeed we are going to try to restore sanity in that place there.

So, so much as it is dire, someone also raised the—raised the issue of—I think the way you've explained debugging—I think if we introduced timelines for hearing of these matters, then—like—I think the person gave—I think it was Linda actually gave the example in the US where plea bargaining settles most cases; there's only so much time that your case can remain in the system. So there's a time limit to how fast you must be prosecuted. We had a—we had a guest from South Africa who told us about the timelines for what constitutes backlog in South Africa, and it became clear to us that if South African backlog is Ugandan jet-like speed—that if the case went at the speed of a South African case—it would be prime evidence of corruption. Corruption, corruption, corruption. We—we certainly need to have a proper review of the entire process. One of the arguments we've been making here beyond all the generations is mission-based, based on Article 142 of the constitution, and our argument has been because—yes, I hear you there—all these challenges, but at the same time we are seeing judicial officers overworked and overburdened, and we've gone into the courts as well. Um—um—um—um—um—I don't think we can just condemn the judges only without also understanding the conditions in which many of the colleagues who sit on the bench are practicing. I mean, someone is sitting for 16-hour days handling 10,000 cases before them with a—with a backlog growing. A judge told me that he was appointed judge on Monday and on Wednesday he had backlog. This is a senior judge in Uganda. Told me that he—he—he took—he was appointed a judge. He went to parliament. He got approved. This was about—and this was—um—he—he—he had this experience about 10 years ago. He was appointed—no, actually he's been a judge for about 20 years. So he was appointed 20 years ago, and 20 years ago in that week his lordship had backlog. The system, as currently designed—because I heard you talking about mediation in particular—has become like a ransom. The criminal justice system seems to be holding hostages at ransom. Accept and get a lesser sentence. Fight, and take a—and you'll serve your sentence on remand. Yes, there are all these challenges. But where do you think mission-based judges fit into this conversation? Because we have been firmly pushing for the idea that we need to have mission-based judges, and we need to have mission-based judges being judges—and for those who don't understand mission-based judges—it's based on Article 142, clause two of the constitution; it's already in the law where the state of the business of the court so requires; the judicial service commission shall advise, and the president shall appoint a—but I shall appoint advocates to go into the courts and help carry the burden. And when you finish carrying your burden, you go back into your practice. No pension, no official car, no whatever, none of the—none of the—um—pomp and circumstance of judicial office. [Music] Recently, uh, and even for some time, the bar has a depth of experience. There are persons who are seasoned who would not maybe make the cut because of—of—of—of a number of situations, uh, that occur within the GSC. But they can indeed serve this country honorably. They can—they have—they practiced; they have—they understand the law; they understand the procedure, and no one better understands indeed the plight of these—of—of our clients more than the advocates. So I entirely agree that they are a step in the right direction. If handled—if handled well—if even properly designed, uh, it can go a long way in addressing the situation. Maybe say, uh, pick an Ellison from central here and maybe let him hear matters maybe arising in Moroto or in—in Kamoja where he has no, uh, actual connection to the situation. It would even serve best for, uh, say matters that are criminal. Where would somebody take—take 8 years waiting yet the evidence available is clear—it's glaring, for instance—and we have done these trials, but you have him wait—maybe if I even just at this—at this—at this strong point. Uh, our current system of—our current system of—of—of—of justice—mostly criminal—criminal—doesn't aid any of the parties involved. The accused person doesn't get to have his day in court because he is penalized before his trial and forced to sign a bargain agreement. The victim of the crime—after those eight years—say she's a girl of 14 years—should be about—maybe the prosecution, the state, the victim, no one is benefiting from the ongoing situation. So when your idea is mooted, indeed it makes logical sense. It's appropriate. It's timely. Uh, I think it is even—this side—because where we stand today, uh, you cannot do it. It's done. Let us get out of there. It would go a long way in emptying our prisons or at least even allowing persons to have their day in court in a timely manner. But even also allow them to serve their due time and not serve a pre-trial penalty, and then no one can indemnify you for that time—that someone who sent them on—to—to clear any cases. So I would like to get to understand from you what safeguards can be put in place to safeguard and preserve the judicial independence of the mission-based judges once they are appointed—just in case we go and they are appointed. Thank you. Yeah, has confirmed that mission-based are going through. So I would like to hear from you what safeguards can be put in place to safeguard the independence of the mission-based judges so that we don't have the same scenario with the current judges where most—where some of them are not independent. We don't want it to happen to also these mission badges who are coming on a mission and also not independent. So these ones—we want them to be independent. So what can we do for them to be independent? Thank you.

Okay. Uh, what bothers me even till today is why we still struggle with judicial independence. I think we have moved a long way in having the relevant clause in place to enable the judges enjoy independent—independence of thought and maybe independence of actions, uh, but still, uh, they struggle with chains of overreach by the state, and, uh, for me, this one here I think goes back to the state. Uh, if we are to—for starters—agree that the law is supreme, that our constitution is supreme, uh, and every organ and every arm of government appreciates that indeed they are subject to the law, and then number two is that, uh, we must respect the independence of the different arms of government because each of them exists to check the other. Now one can't begin to overstep or overreach into the other's mandate, and we think we shall enjoy that degree of independence. This has been, I think, one of the earliest—first-year questions. Uh, we've been asking—we've been asking ourselves, uh, why—why do we have judges appointed by the president? Uh, every other meaningful—every other meaningful democracy has walked away from, uh, that chain that holds them back. Because indeed through the appointment mechanism you set up a system of—of—of—of either bias or of lack of independence—that because I know you must appoint, or you must reward from this recent list. Now for us who are from the field, we hear the undertones from the recent lists of the appointments. A number of, uh, proper servicemen who have—they call themselves, uh, career judicial officers—they felt that having served for all this while, uh, they would wonder why they would be left out of the list. Now that in itself creates in their minds, uh, the need to impress, or they need to, uh, they need to submit. So some of them—some of them—they even submit voluntarily—that they are not being coerced into—into—into—into these things there—but they submit, and they want to appease—the need to appease the state. What I think, uh, would be different with the—the other situation of if we appoint judges now on mission, uh, they would have a mission; really, it is for a given time; it's like a session that we have set you a session, and we have, say, deal with 30 criminal cases, and at the end of one month it is done. It is done. Uh, you will have limited interference, or minimal, or even none, because it is hard that you will find that someone is making calls over—over—over to somebody who is there for a given cause. So if we would—for starters—as a country arrive at—or arrive at a point where we acknowledge that our law is supreme and the judges and our bench also shake off the shackles of repression and shake off the shackles, uh, that are subduing them and think independently—decide independently—many of these issues here are drawn from the individual—that we can still have the same occur, uh, or have the same problem pre—go on to occur until the individuals—until we—the Ugandans—feel that indeed I am serving a cause bigger than either the state or a cause bigger than whoever is in my inbox trying to influence my decision. You can ask. Thank you.

If I could also just supplement your—your answer, Alfred, you see at the moment there is no independence in backlog. Think about it. 45 trillion shillings or even more now tied up in the commercial court. The average time it takes a land dispute in this country is 5 to 7 years. Land is becoming a huge driver of crime because people are—the court is not able to dispose of land disputes in record time. What does that mean—that the court isn't able to dispose of land disputes? It means that a—a woman recently widowed, evicted by relatives or—or—or neighbors, running to a court of law, and then the court has to take 7 years. It means that a land dis—land—the courts have become almost like a refuge in land matters for—for the people who are—for the scoundrels—for the people who are grabbing land because they know that the court will—the wheels of justice will turn too slowly, and justice will grind itself into the ground. Meanwhile, they change the status quo; they move on. You—you look at criminal justice, what you've just been hearing of—5 years on remand—of a plea bargaining system where people are being held, um, through a hostage situation, whether it is family law, criminal law, commercial law, land law. The civil division of the high court is currently, um, well, I—I think some judges have been appointed, but has—I don't know if they've taken office yet. I think they'll be taking office soon, but has been sitting with one judge—one hearing all civil cases in the Republic of Uganda. Even before the other colleagues in the court were promoted, that particular judge had a—a caseload of 700 cases. So we can't sit here and think that backlog does not represent a crisis to the independence of the judiciary. That backlog does not create a crisis to the administration of justice. That backlog does not create a crisis that requires us to think seriously. As far—we were told on one of the spaces—as far back as 1974, there was backlog. So the thinking that is creating backlog—the thinking that created backlog and that caused backlog—must be—we must rethink, um, the legal reforms that Eddie has spoken about—the computerization of our courts—the idea that we can't—there's a problem with the building of the—of the—of the Supreme Court, and the court can't sit for a year or two—for a whole year—there's not…

One single session of a court of law in this country, and that for four years or so, uh, people's appeals haven't actually been heard or disposed of. The idea that a courtroom is a building and not a service is something that needs to end yesterday. And these are the sort of conversations, uh, Eddie, uh, we're trying to have. I'm trying to get Humphrey on. We're trying to make sure that he also comes on and can get his, uh, his take on these subjects.

I think Alfred, my contribution to that answer—I know I'm supposed to be asking questions with you—but my contribution to that answer is we value independence above everything. But we must also start looking at ideas on how to make sure that decisions are made. Now, will mission-based judges affect judicial independence? I think if you—if we appoint the right people, I think there are enough people in this country who can sit down and hear a dispute. Whether it's a land matter, criminal matter, family matter, people are looking for a service, and we need to start thinking of judicial service as exactly that: a service. And once we have gotten that properly, then we can be able to deliver justice without fear, favor, malice, or ill will.

Finally, on that point, I think we must remember we're writing this whole thing in the law. It's rooted in Article 1422, but it's also rooted in Article 28. A Ugandan appearing before the court has a right to a fair and speedy trial before an independent and impartial tribunal or court. In Uganda, we no longer talk about speedy. In fact, speedy is promised. Someone tells you, "Yeah, we'll we'll we'll have a speedy trial." You go to a—to the commercial court, you say, "I want an injunction," and they say, "Ah, I'll hear you quickly." Speed is now a promise. Speedy is supposed to be a right. Uganda's entitled to a slow trial. They're entitled to a speedy trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. And that's all we're asking for—that we need to start thinking about how to solve a problem that is taking on so many people, destroying lives. Just, I mean, last week we—Eddie—we had some senior members of the bar here, um, telling us the challenges that just women practitioners and women clients are facing just on account of backlog, and the challenges are real. The challenges are serious. The week before we had, uh, others—the week before we had others. I mean, Alfred, it shocked me by telling me we have—we've been having these conversations for two months. That's also backlog. I mean, our—our—our judicial service elections should be happening now, but, um, two months when people are talking about five years—maybe—maybe I don't know—but, um, so for me, that's I think my—my—my take. Thank you, Mr.

I'm seeing some comments from the comment section, and I've seen people who have requested a microphone to speak. We understand you have been part of our audience for now eight episodes. So this time we would want you to be part of this conversation. You could ask your question. I will start with Nora. I hope I've pronounced your name right. You could unmute and ask your question or make your comment. Thank you. Thank you very much.

You guys—problem. We all know the root causes. The quality of the judges who are appointed needs to be solved. If a person is appointed a judicial officer, they should have a basic understanding of law—not to make the several errors that they make—and then because they make those, clients' work doubles because of the quality of the judicial. The second problematic issue is the practice of getting away from being absent from their stations and costing a lot of time. We go back, and we go back, and they are not there. Okay. So, five times you travel a long distance, waste all of that time in court waiting for the judicial officer, the judicial officer is not there. Who handles that? Who handles that? And we are not talking about one person. We are talking about many people waiting for a judicial officer who is not there. And then the third one is the actual function of the courts. You are in a courtroom, and the advocates must speak very slowly because the judge or the judicial officer has to take their own notes. How is that acceptable in this modern day? How is it acceptable? So we need to not say, "Oh, let's have more people—more people who will be absent from station," or let us not say, um, uh, "have more people—more people of inferior quality." So my question to you guys: which institution in Uganda is responsible for holding judicial officers accountable and for vetting the judicial officers, and why don't we move to other jurisdictions here where judicial officers are vetted publicly so that by the time somebody is—It is an honor to have you speak.

Uh, thank you, Nora, for giving us your views, and, uh, we—we are truly honored, and I think first of all, the institution—Eddie will also take on the answer to that—but the institution, of course, is the Judicial Service Commission. The courts themselves as well should at least have mechanisms in which they handle an issue like that. And I think part of the problem you're expressing is a really serious problem: every time you're heading to court—if you're leaving for those who are practicing from Kampala, you're driving, say, to Mubende. I'm not saying this is happening in Mbale. And every time you're on the way to court, you notice the car of the judicial officer passing you, uh, going to Kampala, and, uh, that—that—that is a big problem, and—and—and that's the problem I think Eddie spoke about earlier—that judicial accountability. The Supreme Court, incidentally, I think years ago gave a decision talking about independence and accountability of judicial officers, and, um, we now need to—to—to really build onto these ideas because you see what—what we are trying to do by having these conversations is just to bring light into our judicial system because our strongest belief is that light is the best disinfectant. Let—let us talk. Let us have these conversations. Let us open up the judicial conversations. The clients of the bar, like you, Nora, can give us the sort of feedback that we need to make sure that we're able to deliver the service that is required—not just the legal service but the judicial service that is required—that the courts are able—the courts and the officers—being asked—the lawyers are able to deliver, um, justice. But I think Eddie, you—you should maybe take on the heart of, um, of—of—of Norah's, uh, question before we take another one, uh, thank—Thank you, Ellison.

I think—and whether you're just speaking politely or politically—you need to tell people some of these things realistically. Quality of judges, uh, is a problem because of the nature of appointments. The GSC has locked their doors. You—you won't know what's going on. You won't know who is being considered. You won't even know what their track record is. You won't even know what they have done. Remember, even with the radical new bar, we—we get surprised when a list is shared, and you wonder when did the—the vetting go on. Uh, we know about so-and-so—a lot that would have told you—and even—and even when we have told of these faults, they are ignored, and you just wonder about the levels of impunity, disregard, and you wonder where do we go to really now. Uh, my brother will say, uh, "yes, something will be done," but ideally, why we are—why we've been discussing the radical surgery, uh, and the need for the elections of the JSC to happen yesterday is we need to break the walls, uh, where the JSC is sitting. Just break the walls. Let us see what is going on under the table. Let us see what is going on within those spaces there. Let us assess quality as members of the public, members of the bar. We know these people. We know their judgments. We know what they say. We know what they think. We know what they have written down, but when we are locked out—that's why each one of us needs to join our rally to demand that the elections must happen for the JSC—ULS members and demand that, uh, the courts must determine the matters where the ULS has been tied down up until now. Then about the absences again—that draws back to the JSC. Uh, complaints are unaddressed, and the levels of impunity or indifference—they're just unbothered, less concerned, uh, I think they just fall shy of saying, "Go to hell," when we—when we complained, uh, and demanded that the JSC dispose of the complaints against Justice Sakana, uh, by a given date, and we called for a boycott of the court. The GSC just thought, "You guys go to hell. Uh, this is not your country." And—and that is where we are—that you know we are all shocked, and until we get radically shocked is when we can begin to have meaningful solutions about the court practice and—and—and—and—and he—something was mentioned about, uh, softspokenness and the kind of processes, uh, of course with the—the enactment of—the digital—I forget the exact SI—but we are trying to introduce, uh, digital means of hearing matters—that there'll be a microphone or there will be a system that maybe would even record—to do with this having to write—having to—to—to delay and delay trial because someone is taking every single note or even choosing what they will write. Now, under the radical new, we are moving, uh, towards digital transformation. We are pushing hard that we can indeed move away from the analog and become digital in the days to come. And maybe lastly about absences, uh, some of the—some of the listeners on the page—radical members—I don't want to mention their names—but recently there has been a, uh, public outcry about any judicial mishaps—that when a matter is coming up and the state isn't there—the—whoever is not sitting—the chief man isn't sitting—word shall go around, and indeed it shall create a sense of embarrassment, uh, before it was being, uh, said to be attacks on the bench, but I think the public also must demand for their rights—that if at all they are bringing you a bail hearing and the court has chosen to be absent, we can't be quiet about that—we must speak up about it—we must call out these persons—call them out and say, "You know we know that you are on a holiday somewhere, but rights of individuals are being abused." Right now we can't report them to the—to the JSC. So we shall call them out in our public spaces and call out their names where they are falling short and make these things come to light. I think those are ways of us beginning to first of all help ourselves before we get to the JSC election. When we get there and we are banging tables there, uh, we shall have meaningful reform. But for now, let's call out. Let's call out those who are not delivering. Let's call out those who are absent. If there's—there's—there's a habit of courts don't sit on Monday and Friday because people are traveling back and forth, that shouldn't be happening. When you apply for a judicial job, it means you have sworn to serve—serve the country. Yeah.

Thank you, Eddie. That's quite interesting. Let me get a question from Mr. Jamesa. I know you have had the chance to speak for quite a long time. Can we—may we have your question, Mr.—Mr. James? Are you able to speak? I think we can't have him. In the meantime, we can have from Mr.—I hope I spelled your name right. I hope I got your name right.

Yeah, you got it right. I hope I'll be able to speak because my network is shaky. I'm on the streets of America. Well, it's going to take you people who know the law, radicalize citizens in America here. Literally, we protest. Not—I don't want to say we protest because I've become part of them. You'll find women who don't want to breastfeed protesting. You'll find women who don't have men protesting. Literally everything is legislated. You go to hospital, and the time wasted is accounted for by a lawyer, not even by your doctor. I got excited when SEAK came on the scene. But at the same time, I said, "No, it's not SEAK alone—it's revamping of institutions that coordinate with SEAK." The law is not going to act alone minus supportive institutions. You are talking about the land reforms—you're talking about—mention any nonsense in Uganda—it's because the citizens are just taking—taking a ride in the back seat. That's where the citizens have to be—in the gallery—the public—Then the American public gallery is filled every day. Planned Parenthood—whatever—you can't legislate something in America minus the law for being mentioned to you. So, as Ugandans, I think we need to wake up. You guys spend more time waking up citizens—radicalized citizens—not pick arms but to be able to understand that everything—Yeah. Thank you so much, Mr.—My thank you.

Yeah, we are glad to have Mr.—the president on the call. He has been on the call for—since—since we—when we began this space. At this juncture, I think to follow some protocol, I will invite—I know Mr. Ed came as a speaker, but I would follow protocol and invite him to invite the president to speak to us. Mr.—Now you're tuning in to—to invite our—as secretary now, please invite our president to speak to us. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Uh, Mr. President, uh, whenever—whenever you pick a mic, uh, everybody, uh, listens. Uh, someone told me that what they admire most about you is you are courageous, and your courage will deliver even the most impossible situations. Uh, the speaker that spoke before said, "Let's wake up the country and radicalize citizens," and no one is better placed to, uh, shake and break and wake up anybody than you. So I would invite you to share your thoughts on, uh, what we've been discussing today. Thank you. So I would invite you to share your thoughts on what we'll be discussing today. Mr.—We can't hear you. Please, you may need to unmute. Yeah, we can get you now. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can. Mr. President, we can't hear you. Please, you may need to unmute. Yeah, we can get you now. Council member presiding on my behalf. Can you hear me now?

Yes, we can. All right. Uh, I want to start by thanking my colleague, uh, in council, our interim secretary, and, uh, council member presiding on my behalf, uh, of our colleagues practicing, um, all the way from beyond Mukono up to—and, uh, Puket—all over what we call the eastern region—the eastern. I am grateful, uh, for the tribute you gave to our conversations, um, in the vortex of our campaign, um, the conversations that continue in council, but I felt I should, uh, um, provide—made some additional profile about you, Mr. Edinu. I'm happy you—you—you made it very clear to Mr. Karanga when he asked to understand who you are, what drives you—that you—you joined the bar even before you—you entered university. I—I was there. I saw it. Um, you were our office messenger in the law firm of Mr.—and a—and a long time ago. You hadn't even decided that you would do law, but here you are, and you are a stinging example of ambition, resilience, and patriotism. I was very edified when I saw you selected, uh, for these GSC conversations, and I should thank you for being able to fight back tears when you speak about such depressing conditions of legal practice. It—it—it's a testimony to your mettle as a leader, as a problem solver, and, uh, as a—a flag bearer for the radical Nuba. You really have taken charge, uh, of the situation for yourself, for your family, for your colleagues, and for all donkeys, uh, at the bar who—who have all but given up and want us to remain in this swamp. Um, you're a fighter, Mr. Nanguru. It—it sips through, and, uh, the topic says the future of legal practice. Legal practice will be left for very few titans like you. The rest will be mere statistics, but the actual practitioners will be people like you, Mr. Nanguru. And you must not really count on anybody else to—to save the situation. You should count on only yourselves, and you don't have to be many. So I wanted to, you know, add that because I know you very well. I serve with you in council. Um, and, um, I'm very grateful that you have been a wonderful representative of the quality of talent we have in the radical. I—I want to, um, again thank Mr. Muyaka and Mr. Kohanga for maintaining this consistent interaction, uh, about hard and annoying truths that we must confront if we are to get out. Level, um, awareness of the need for a collective conscience as the primary ingredient of any solutions. Our—and awareness of our generational or cross-generational synergies as well is important. I—I—I am a very—very good friend and admirer of Mr. Edison Khanga. I—I—I—I must confess that right from the word go. Um, and I met you when probably, you know, at the beginning of my career as well, and you're such a great listener. I—I'm not surprised that it continues—that—that you know, shining streak of your character continues. You are listening. We can hear a radical. We can hear a radical in the bar from your colleagues, even in the young bar. Uh, you bring these conversations to them. So I—I have a lot to say, but, um, I have somebody who is policing me. You can hear a radical in the background. Yeah. So I am going to cut it off. I'm going to have to cut it short. But before I do, I want to challenge you, Mr. Kohhunga, and your colleagues, uh, to begin from the root. Um, as, uh, as we were challenged by my good friend, uh, and favorite intellectual, uh, alive, Miss Nora Ora, um, ultimately, I—I will speak to backlog later if this thing continues, uh, and I'm able to put my colleague—I'm able to provide some accountability here, but, uh, for now, I—I want to say that, uh, the only solution out of this, uh, ultimately is, uh, changing culture, uh, both in legal practice and in judiciary, and the culture—culture—the culture solution actually was contemplated and—and legislated in Article 142, sub-article 2, as Edison says, and I'm glad that on this we have a meeting of minds—we have an intensity of passion—but we have a challenge, Mr., which is not coming through. Uh, Article 142, sub-article 2 became the subject matter of, uh, great controversy right now because, um, we have seen a second batch of judges appointed as acting judges, and—and literally they use the word "acting," but really they mean judges on probation. They don't really—acting judges. They—they are misdescribed as acting judges, but they are probationary judges. And—and—and a probationary judge—the notion of a probationary judge is not just unpopular. It is, uh, it is offensive to anybody that, uh, appreciates the—the role and place of a judge in a progressive constitutional democracy. Judges must not be under anybody's supervision, and you know, with the way we know how probation works—the—but that's not the same thing as a judge on contract for a specific, uh, period of time and or a specific, uh, mission as—as Senior Council Kohhunga calls it—it's not the same thing, and that—that, uh, fine thread is not yet articulated. So we may have people who are here and they are still withholding their consent to this process because they see you as—they see Mr.—and they see us as, um, providing or manufacturing public consent for a—for a repulsive idea as a pro—as—as a probationary judge. We may be misunderstood as we are inviting our colleagues to back—I—I won't miss my words. These are really—insum—toxic judge lists that we keep seeing, uh, and we've—and we've gone through such, uh, such trauma, uh, with judge situations—and—and not just judge—that's the most well-known—yesterday—the other day—my friend Joe jumped onto the space and surprised us with testimony that there's Judge Singa who has now been made chairperson of the Jabs Commission was a probationary judge, I think from 2022 until this—this year, and, uh, and he made it a point to refuse to do certain cases. In fact, Quo told us that the judge called them and spent very useful judicial time, lambasting them for filing cases, putting—placing before him a case, quote unquote, "that will put him in trouble with power." "Why did you bring this case? Why do you want me not to be approved?" You know, and—and he—he told them he won't give them a hearing date. So they were stuck for one and a half years until they returned to the registrar and told the judge verbatim what the judge told them in chambers—like this is where—

We are. So we, we are trying to move the whole nation to a new awareness, but we have an immediate challenge, uh, to confront. So these concepts, Mr. Karanga, we have to deal with. I don't know how we're going to manage, but we have an existential challenge, and um, in other words, we may fail; the conversations may not go anywhere if these conceptual challenges are not resolved immediately.

I want to contribute here by inviting everybody to read the Kabumba case. Uh, let me see if I have my here. It is called constitutional petition number 15 of 2022. Uh, the lead judgment was written by Judge Monica Moeni Mugeni Moni. And at page 24 of that judgment, there is a paragraph called 60, paragraph 63. Page 24. Let's go there. Page 24. I think I'll take a screenshot and share. Uh, page 24, paragraph 63. Um, it reads, and I quote, "It is inconceivable, in my view, that the framers of the constitution contemplated having two parallel pathways for for the first time appointment of judges: one under article 142 sub article 1 and subject to parliamentary approval, and the other under article 142 sub article 2, are not subject to such approval."

Now, the the the operative word here is inconceivable. This is manifest error. The judge sees article 142 sub article one saying saying one thing and article 142 sub article 2 saying a different thing, and she's saying, no, the obvious thing is inconceivable. It is so conceivable. That was the whole, the intent is clear. Under article 142 sub article 2, judges appointed under article 142 sub article 2 must go and face parliamentary vetting. Judges appointed under article 142 sub article 2 face no such requirement, and there is good reason for that.

Yes, I'm sorry. Am I still audible? Yeah, I'm sorry. Uh, so for me, this is the first thing we need to explain, I think, as a ritual before we we delve uh into the intestines of finding uh a final solution to backlog, if I can call it that, or a radical solution to backlog.

M, article 142 sub article 2, uh, Ellison, is is your constitution near you there? Can you read it? Yeah, we're going, can you let me get it? Yes, it's still being looked for, but um, but it it it says, from my reading of it, still being, you guys, you guys, this is this is the problem, from my recollection, but it is simple. You can, you can of the constitution of it says provides, yes, you recollection, yes, men, Article 142 of the constitution of Uganda. Article 1422 says that small line says the president may, the president, the president may shall with the recommendation of the just of service commission and approval of parliament on the judicial service commission commission. Yes. The president. Okay, it says where the office of a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of appeal or a judge of the high court is vacant or for any reason a justice of the Supreme Court. Okay. It says where the office of a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of appeal or a judge justice the justice the principal judge the justice of the supreme court justice of appeal and the judge of the high court shall be for any reason the president of the judicial service one says the chief justice, the deputy chief justice, the principal judge, the justice of the supreme court and justice of appeal and the judge of the high court shall be appointed by the president acting on the advice of the judicial service commission and with the approval of parliament. Yes.

So when we come to very clear, and it has been the subject of judicial interpretation in Jer, honorable Jared Kafulanga, it's a tripartite state, starting with the recommendation of the of the of the just of the judicial service commission and service commission being a public body, it must process that recommendation based on principles of transparency, accountability, and so on and everything else, then it sends this name so the president can't be the originator in that in the Karanga case, the president was originator of names and asking for the opinion of the justice of the judicial service commission. And they said, no, you can't; there's no reverse pathway; the names must only come from the social service commission; if it gives you no names, you can't appoint; if it gives you one name, you you have no choice; you you can't say I don't want, okay, and so on and so forth; you you you send to parliament; your job is to send to parliament; so it was a huge contest; that contest was so huge that it deprived us of a chief justice for 3; has the president was all over on at barriers, weddings, everywhere. He would get a microphone. He would say the chief justice I want is Benjamin Odoki who has clocked 70 years and and chairperson and his committee and his commission, we are saying our chief justice is only and only Bat, and we will not, you know, add you another name. And so not to look, we we went without chief justice, and then we went without a deputy chief justice as well because the president said I won't appoint anybody else.

So Mr. What's name? There's a judge. No, there's a judge who who was acting DCJ and became acting justice. Justice Kand, it was an embarrassment. The bar had to boycott his attendance of the new address of the open new lawyer in 2014. IO 2013, I believe, president R 17 had to lead us in a boycott, and so we cannot go and be addressed by an impostor. A who is start again? Let me let me let me buy you. But it's still, don't buy use. You may need to start. Oh, but um, we are still we are still online on YouTube and uh we our space dropped on X. Um, Alfred, you're getting us back on. But I think the important point the president of the law society has been making in that space is that um we need to push the idea of article 142 to as you can see on that particular issue. As on many others, the ULS president is doctrinally perpendicular. He's clearly uh communicating to our listeners that the history of these provisions and um he was he was cut short in the middle of a might historic moment where he was explaining the litigation of article 1421 and article 1422 of the constitution.

Now, for for those who don't know, our constitution provides for the appointment of judicial officers, and the appointment of those judicial officers is governed by two provisions of our constitution. Article 1421 which says that the president shall appoint with the approval of parliament uh on and on the advice of the judicial service commission, and in fact there's a huge debate even in the constituent assembly, and those who have been listening to us frequently knows that this is precisely what has been happening. Then article 1422 of the constitution provides that where the business where there's a vacancy in the court or where for any reason a judge or a justice is unable to perform their duties or where the business of the court so requires the president can appoint without on the advice of the judicial service commission without actually going to parliament. It's a quick fix solution. It is saying that where the business of the court so requires people can go in and handle these issues, and the president of the law society was going through um an explanation of this and some on which as he said him and I agree.

Now what what he what what his criticism seems to be is that we're not addressing what he calls the elephant in the room, the decision of the constitutional court in the Kabumba case, and that we're not going to get buying from some people because of a passage in a judgment. Now, in Kabumba's case, Kabumba was, for those who don't know again, Kabumba was challenging the appointment of acting judges, and as the presidential society has said and which is a point we have been making, what they talking about what they're calling acting judges are probationary um judges, and um a judge on probation lacks independence, and the issue of the judge on probation lacking independence must not be used to throw the be out with the bath water. I'm getting back soon. Um, and so that's where we are. So, we we're we're working through the technicality of what happened on on X Spaces. As you all know, when um when um when Elon Musk was hosting Donald Trump, his own platform crashed. So I think there's this thing that happens when you're hosting some particular guys. The the thing just crashes. Uh, but um yeah, it is back. And now allow me to also welcome back our listeners on on um you can join in. I don't know. I don't see it. We are joining shortly. Um, yeah, you can you share the I made you welcome back. Let me go. Welcome back colleagues who have joined us. We had um a slight technical glitch as you know historically when um Elon Musk hosted Donald Trump the the thing also crashed there. So it has also crashed here, and it has crashed here as as points were being were being um thrown about now. Um, as we tried to get back um the ULS president and the audience. I think the point which was being made um which is a point that I think we need to to address is the the issue of the the distinction between article 1421 and article 1422 and the decision in the case of Busin Kabumba and uh so for those who don't know article 1421 deals with the appointment of judicial officers, and I think um the US president was making the case that that decision has been the subject of intense judicial comment and um has been interpreted as a tripartite process. A clear reading of the language of the constitution also shows it to be a tripartite process, but he also talked about article 1422.

Now what I want to do is maybe just as as as he's coming on just to give a brief um understanding of the legal architecture in my opinion. Article 1421 sets out the terms upon which someone serves as a judicial officer is appointed by the president with the approval of parliament and on the advice of the judicial service commission. The law is clear. The advice comes first. The president sends the names and parliament approves them. Article 1422 creates a different scenario within article 1422. There are three things that the framers of the constitution had in mind. What happens when a judge is unable to perform his duties? What happens when the office of a particular judicial officer is vacant? What happens when the business of the court so requires when their lordships all of them sitting in office are so overwhelmed by the business of the court of appeal, the supreme court and the high court, and the framers of our constitution inserted a stop gap measure that in a situation where that happens then the president may on the advice of the judicial service commission appoint someone to come in in a temporary position. To act and solve that problem, that immediate problem. That problem being the absence of a judge, the um office of the judge being vacant or the business of the court so requiring, and our contention in all these pieces has been that the business of the court so requires.

Now, the president of the law society was saying, what Isaac Seaki was saying, and I I hope he'll join us soon, he was kicked off by technology, uh what he was saying was that um if we read the decision in Kabumba, it's it's standing as a as a serious bar to the way we are moving on in this conversation, and that we're not able to get many colleagues to agree with us and that we need to address the issue of whether or not it was inconceivable and uh of course he said it was conceivable and indeed it is conceivable. And not just conceivable, it's exactly what was conceived. Think about it. The framers of the constitution gave us a way in which the bar can be deployed in good numbers to assist in the resolution of judicial disputes. But even in that deployment, in a deployment that would be mindful of the various challenges and that's the debate we've been having here on these weekly spaces which Alfred has reminded me have been eight so far, and in in that debate we've been making the case that we are making today and that we have consistently made and that we're not going to stop making, which is that lawyers can act as temporary judicial officers. Is that lawyers can be deployed where the business of the court so requires, and today the business of the court so requires. 44 trillion shillings stuck in the commercial court. Thousands of people on remand pending trial for four, five, 6, 7, 1 year, 2 years, 9 months. The business of the court so requires that in those cases are resolved, that the just that the victims obtain justice, that the accused go free; accusations cannot become convictions; we are saying the business of the court so requires and so Alfred and um I'm really happy to have joined and uh for this conversation, and I I see the conversation has become big because this has precisely been the argument and so the president of the law society has been making this case; unfortunately I said he actually agrees with the position we have been pushing. It's the most logical position. It's the most reasonable position. It is a position that will that seeks to address a problem that exists. It's a solution that seeks to to address challenges that are there. If we don't address these challenges, then injustice is going to be injustice everywhere because injustice is going to threaten the temple of justice. It means that the wheels of justice are going to are going to to crash. Just think about it. What do you have to do to get your case from the back of the line to the front of the line? If you're going into a courtroom that where the judge has a thousand cases, what do you have to do to make your case jump 1,000 other litigants? How does anyone think that backlog does not encourage corruption in ways that are simply unimaginable? Fine. Let's say you don't jump everyone. What then you do? So you have corruption, you have incompetence, you have failure. And all of this is happening in a judiciary where judges are overburdened. I can't keep making this point, uh, where judges overburdened. And so I am very happy to welcome all of you here to this wonderful wonderful space. And um we always have our spaces for a short time, but um maybe I'll allow maybe we'll allow for some more questions from the audience again um and see what people have to say about it as we try to get back some of the guests that we had. But remember, we're discussing the future of practice. And in my view, the future of practice must include practitioners being able to sit on the bench and go back into practice. This idea exists in the constitution. We are not making it up. What we are proposing doesn't have to amend any law. It is there.

Now the comment uh I think there's also a the passage in the in in the constitutional court judgment which I think was that that was cited did not address really the actual provision of the constitution. Uh um I'm told the president of the law society is back on and uh I am back. You're back. Yes. The anti-backlog clause where the business of the court. Yes. Where the state of the business of the court so requires the passage in the in the constitutional court judgment I think was obiter dictum, um you know you know you know you don't address really the provision of the constitution, you know the you know you know my brother Mr. President is um a very eloquent speaker. So he speaks like these powerful church preachers who say read second Corinthians. The constitution of Uganda, article 142 of the constitution provides, approve the anti-backlog clause, we are done, 1421, 1422, when the office of the supreme court or a justice of the court of appeal or a judge of the high court is vacant, a justice of the supreme court, a justice of appeal or a judge of the high court is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his or office or the chief justice advises the judicial service commission that the state of the business in the Supreme Court, the court of appeal or the high court so requires, article 142, the emphasis, the state of the business so requires, the president may, acting on the advice of the judicial service commission, appoint a person qualified for appointment as a justice of the supreme court or a justice of appeal or a judge of the high court to act in such to act as such a justice or a judge even though the person has attained the age prescribed for retirement in respect of that office. President made that clear of the judicial language, qualified appointment as a justice of the Supreme Court or a justice of appeal or a judge of the high court to act in such act as such a justice or a judge even though the person has attained the age prescribed for retirement in respect of that office. That that is a clear and unambiguous language. Mr. President should continue shooting. So under article [Music] 1, were either victims of backlog in their time. They had the experience of you know a tyranny of judges and a tyranny of procedure depriving you of having more judges where you have backlog and when you appeal to all those who have power, say the president, the service commission, everybody's answer is that but the constitution prevents me from giving you uh uh you know a solution to any number of reason; that's the experience. They came with all they were foresighted. They they they for they said wait wait wait a minute, the permanent and pensionable judges who parliament approved may find themselves in in the following situations. Number one, a vacancy which may not be easy to fill for any number of reasons because man uh the office of a judge is so important. They don't just feel it like uh you're filling diesel, you know, like refilling at a petrol station. No, it's the process is uh quite uh rigorous. So a vacancy in any of those three superior courts, it's a shock, is a special thing, a special event. The second is an absence due to any reasons. It could be it could be an extended illness. It it could even be exile. I mean the absence of justice uh uh should you know it's a it's a shock, it's an embarrassment, it's a blight on our conscience as a nation, but there it is; we have an absence on behalf of the we also have an absence which I have condemned before, but you don't join me; DPP absconded, absconded; she's a judge of the high court in the criminal division; that's how the the records of the judicial [Music] her absconded. She's now moonlighting's office. She's moonlighting on behalf of the executive as a prosecutor. Official function. Parliament approved her as a judge for life. So there you see a politically instigated, orchestrated, supported absence. There are many others of that kind. Judges are usually absent. They can be summoned. They can be invited to lead commissions of inquiry. They can be invited to to to you know they can be invited on request by other nations to to help them and and and Uganda as a member of these international treaties may not say no; we have many of those kinds; we have justice 17; she's a judge of the high court of Uganda, but she's been so absent you uh serving on international tour; justice is absent. She's a judge of the of the court of appeal. There are others. There were notable absences that we speak of the absence of justice in Istimo. There were absences of justice Gaswaga uh in in seells as well. You know, they bring prestige to Uganda. So absences that close also envisages that emergencies don't think of that we can't even imagine; think of now to the people who wrote their constitution that they were able to pic it canerate you know it; all judges can go, and so there has to be a a a safety you know valve, and that's it. This is extraordinary events. The most uh uh urgent one that we are discussing is backlog, and it was intentional that for the judges who will be appointed under article 142 sub article 2. Number one, it is clear on the face of the clause that they would be on your contract. There's no mention in article one. This will be on your contract first time. This will be on invitation. The chief justice has deemed it to to to instigate a recruitment what Mr. calls a mission best recruitment. I must provide accountability. This was a blow for the chief justice is calling him all sorts of names. My professional colleagues who I read are asking for solutions through me, and I have told them their solutions are in the law. But uh but uh justice do is different from justice Odoki. Justice Odoki invoked article 142 sub article two without banging the table for dollar. We must bang the table. I banged the table in two articles. The first one I said why are supreme court judges earning money for free? Because this man closed the Supreme Court for 7 months. 2.1 was taken as wages for judges who were sitting at home doing nothing apparently because he

Had seen a rat and some spark in the same office. Justice had been there. Just had seen the same rats. He had seen falling debris. He had served like the good Catholic he is. That building was always unsafe and unfit for purpose. But I don't know if this judge served in it without being pushed. This one sees a rat and then says, "I must close the court," and closes the court and just does nothing, and the bow was quiet. I bang the table; the next week they said, "Oh, we have found premises," but it was December; what's the point of entering premises on December 1st anyway? I thought they would be serious; they did nothing; they went in conferences up to APO until I had to write another, "Are you with me?" and it showed the theft or the mismanagement.

This time I wasn't blaming everyone in the Supreme Court. I had received some feedback that Isaac, all power in the Supreme Court by rule 20 of the Supreme Court rules, is left for the Chief Justice alone. The chief justice is the strong decider of what case gets heard, when, and by whom. So judges in the Supreme Court, however eager they want to work, they can't assign themselves work. So I have to change and say the backstop is justice, and my first duty station at the bar was as a clerk to Justice Krev in Mango, five justices. One of them, the chief justice, you kala in article 131 admin functions, but he would report when the court administrator has, you know, put up a session, or there's a case, or there's a discussion; he will turn up as any, you know, as the judge performed the judicial functions. Um, the justice manager was also absent for most of the time because of judicial duty. I think he was a judge in the East African Court of Justice, which was starting and it had to be given special care and attention. He also had a stint in the African Court of Human Rights. So we only had Justice, Justice, and Justice Kh, Justice Kany—ha, three; they were the ones. In fact, those of us who came for clerkship then were asked by then the registrar, now my lady Justice Oneta, to select any of those three for supervision, and I—but this—this a—

So during the 8 months I was there, I saw a civil session, a criminal session, and two sessions. How did Justice, Chief Justice K, do it? He invoked article 142 and invited judges into the Supreme Court to get business moving. That is how Henry, actually being, was able to argue a case; nearly three judges in that case were injustices and article 142 and so and so. Now the problem we have is that in living memory, the only chief justice that has invoked article 142 has been uh Justice, Chief Justice Odoki, and Chief Justice Odoki used to invite sitting judges from the High Court. I remember I saw Justice Abroad. I remember I saw uh the deceased uh Justice Cost; all these people coming from, and of course we can Justice as well. So, and when Chief Justice of and his retired age almost at the same time, Chief Justice then who had now occupied office in 2015, you see, you see because of that wrangling between 2013 and 2015, the Chief Justice, the court suffered vacancies again. So even wrangling can cause vacancies—political wrangling affecting the judiciary.

So what did Chief Justice, what did Kre do? He said, "Wait a minute. Parliament will take too long to give me good quality judges for the Supreme Court." He wrote a commission to cause the president to retain four justices who had clocked retirement age to continue working for two years, you know, as the process of, you know, happened. Now that, that's now that history is what Justice Monica Mueni is telling us that 142 is closed for only serving or retired justices; this is why I really called in Mr. I called him to say that there is a culture of ring-fencing. There is a culture of clickism. I don't know where these judges get it from. Once they become judges, they want to be cloistered like the old English judges of the 13th and 16th century. So they don't think that anybody else should have access to their bench to just do the job. They don't see this work as just work. It's just work. At the end of the day, you are a judicial worker. You're a judicial worker. So, but for them, they prize procedures, prize prestige, they prize principle, they prize power, what anybody inside that power chamber. So they treat the entire judiciary as some form of owned Victorian, you know, star chamber. You are the one who went to K. You understand what I mean by that? Others don't. So this u for judiciary, you know, which must, by the way it says, including any would have retired. The president, the choice is broad. The choice for the chief justice, the choice for the president is broad. Is anybody qualified to be a judge of the High Court, Supreme Court, should be able, you know, to fill in and perform a patriotic duty. This selfless task of listening to people's problems and offering them solutions in their lifetime. Why do you say it's only for—wanted to speak to that issue; one of the big—is culture; there's culture at the bar; we shall discuss that another—we're discussing what culture conditions this that that you know, why would a judge think they can for 5 months—it's because we have a culture; he was calling it devil worshiping. We are, we are trapped in the culture of—forgive me Ellison, this is your space. I am trying to control what I would use, but somebody has been absol—because they know their colleagues will permit them. Okay. They don't have a cult of accountability within themselves, and they don't want any. Anyway, let me stop here. I have been called to stop, but you can continue. I think for me I can see you have a rebel in the background. Yeah, the rebel is the first thing is right. Sir colleagues, let me maybe interfere and finish section paragraph 63. Paragraph 63 is this lady says that the, the, the difference between 142 and is is it was an error. Let me resolve as follows. Continues. The more persuasive interpretation, in my opinion, the more passive interpretation of those coal provisions would be that the option of appointing as acting judges under article 142, sub-article 2, would be exclusive to serving or retired judges that would have already been subject to parliamentary approval under article 142, sub-article 1. No sense talking about judges have suffered a terrorism attack; people for traditional forest. Recruitment, appointment would be subject to parliamentary approval under one of the constitution and confer substantive appointment upon the appointment. It is conflating two different ideas. Article 142, article 1, is a pathway for the permanent and perable. Article 142 is a pathway for the temporary and notionable. Those who are not obsessed with being called My Lord, who just want to get the job done. This is not unusual within our, within our own rules of practice as attorneys. There's a rule, I, I, I, rule 3 requires us to handle the case of the client personally to conclusion. But again, rule 3 says as an exception to handle any part of your brief—but—ment, you may not involve the client in making that decision. Are you familiar with this? You're the educator, right? Hello. We can, we can hear you. Yes. Are you famili—what I'm talking about? Yes. Our own rules of professional conduct. It would be nice to read. There's rule 3, and I think like rule 9 or 11, lawyers don't interfere in the brief of another. However, on invitation, with certain, you know, rituals performed, right? Yes. So what's unusual? Why don't judges want uh, uh assistants, refutes, uh auxiliary, you know, you know, not just uh, you know, you should hear the conferences. They call us hooligans, but yeah. You know, every dirty word you can imagine. That's what they—so for me that's the most important thing to start with a radical stance because women should be senior women who should know history; they are drunkards; they don't even write; how can be the person on the page writing books about Uganda's history and when they write, the right nonsense as if they are pastors; let me—If you stop there, you can continue. Okay. Going on next. Okay. Thank you very much to the president of the Uganda Law Society, as usual in his usual characteristic and eloquent style, firing on all cylinders. Um, clearly in need of mission-based judges and strongly in support. I, I think there are serious points which have been made, and um maybe I'll invite either Alfred or Eddie to continue um and and then we'll start winding up very soon. But I think there are serious points which have been made. Ultimately what we are dealing with, and I agree, is a problem of culture. But I think it's a problem of culture that even predates—I know Eddie likes saying that I sound, I'm, I'm cautious and sound political, but I think it's a problem of culture that even predates um, if, if you think about the 1967 constitution. The 1967 constitution had the chief justice as the chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission. The 1967 constitution had, I think, the attorney general as a member, and then the president appointed others. The culture of the 1967 constitution, which was a culture of absolute executive authority, um, absolute, almost absolute presidential power. When you look at the 1967 constitution and the and the and the judiciary of the 1967 constitution, the chief justice was appointing, the chief justice was um really in full control of the judiciary. And then in 1995, the framers of the constitution, the first thing they did is they removed the chief justice from the Judicial Service Commission. They said, "Yes, the judiciary can be represented and must be represented, but so must the bar. On top of that, the public, the Public Service Commission. On top of that, we must introduce new measures in which we are getting the idea of the 1967 constitution. The fun of the 1995 constitution. The fundamental revolutionary idea of that constitution was that the 1995 constitution created an idea that judicial power is derived from the people and must be exercised in accordance with the wishes, norms, and aspirations of the people. The problem we have been having is there's still a lot of 1967 thinking in a 1995 constitutional dispensation. That is why if you look at the Judicial Service Rules of 200—I believe five or seven—you will realize that the Judicial Service Rules are actually rules for the 1967 constitution. I, I, I invite anyone to actually go and read the rules the Judicial Service Commission wrote for themselves 10 years after the making of the constitution, or 12 years, and you read those rules and realize that they're actually enforcing the provisions of the 1967 constitution where the framers removed the chief justice from the JSC as a director of the JSC. The rules try to actually bring him back. So the cultural problem is actually a long-term cultural problem, and the release, long-term cultural problem is a 1967 thinking in a 1995 era, in a 2025 generation, and, and, and the whole thing is not fitting, and it's not fitting because it's not thinking properly. Just think about the idea of um digitization of, of, of making sure that you can deploy technology in the resolution of disputes. Just think—I mean, people come to court and they just wonder what the hell we're doing. So many people come—I, I saw you saw Mr. Oraga here earlier, just wondering what the hell are you guys doing because we are running a 1967 system in a 2025 dispensation. And the beauty about these sort of debates is, is um us a chance to help broaden our thinking and realize that, you know what, if, you know, there's so much that the that the 142—2 actually brings; it brings an expertise from the bar that may not sometimes be available on the bench. It brings um, I mean, we have lawyers right now—I've, I've gone around and seen—we have lawyers right now, senior lawyers sitting up country who, and all over the country, senior people, retired people from the Office of the DPP, retired people from the A's chambers, just recently retired, who can actually sit down and render this service with the experience that they bring. We've got lawyers with incredible experience in IP, in oil, in technology law, in criminal justice, just sitting down there practicing. Yet, the law allows their skills to be deployed for the benefit of all Ugandans and for a period of time. And that's why we're having these conversations. I'm very happy that we've had the president, we've had you, Isaac, on, on, on this space um really supporting this idea and supporting it with a broad historical uh and deep analysis of where we are. And of course, in your usual bombastic and flamboyant style, and, and, and the point which really needs to sink in is what is wrong. The, the same judges you're going to appoint, you're going to appoint them from the bar. What then is wrong with getting in, solving the problem, and going back out? That, for me, is the thinking which we need to encourage. I think we can have maybe one or two other comments from someone who, who wants to have this, and then maybe wind up from Eddie. And I don't know if Isaac is still there or he's been engrossed by the rebel or Alfred. I'm not seeing Massi back on. Um, for those who are just joining us, for the last eight weeks we've been having discussions on spaces on article 142—2 of the constitution, and article 142—2 of the constitution provides that where there's a vacancy in the court, where there is, where for any reason judicial officer, that is a justice of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, or judge of the High Court are unable to perform their functions, or where the chief justice informs the Judicial Service Commission that the state of the business of the courts so require, the president may appoint lawyers in temporary positions as judicial officers. Not just lawyers, but lawyers and retired judges, anyone qualified for appointment. And what we are saying is that this provision of the constitution allows for lawyers or, or, or whoever is qualified to be appointed as a judicial officer to get in, solve a problem, and get out. And, and, and, and we had a guest here, and maybe we, we'll also try and share the link from South Africa who told us this is precisely what happens in South Africa, and in South Africa, if it takes, if a case, a criminal case, takes 9 months from plea to decision, that's called backlog; if a case takes I think 6 months from the filing of the last pleadings to a decision, that's called backlog; in Uganda, if a case takes 6 months from the filing of the pleading to the decision, that is prima facie evidence of corruption. People say, "How the hell have you been able to get your case heard so fast?" I am in a case where someone asked me, "How come your case has moved so fast; we have been having our case for the better part of two years," and that's the idea of speed. So speed, justice—the Ugandans are entitled to a fair hearing before an independent, impartial tribunal, but it's the constitution says to a fair and speedy trial. What we are trying to have the discussions, we're trying to do, is to bring to life what was the—for the most forward-thinking—can't be 1995 when we are in 2025. I, I think that is really our contention. So I'll, I'll allow for Alfred to go back to hosting the space. Alfred, as you all know, is our designated host and uh one of the big thinkers. Alfred, uh I've spoken enough; let me hand back to you. Yes, thank you so much, Mr. and Mr. President. I think from what Mr. has said briefly, I think there is a process debacle in appointment of judges and article 142—1 and article 142, sub-article 2, and I think we dealt with that in I think episode 4; we may follow it up on the commission, but we may bring it up someday, and then you—that we're 1967 thinking in a 2025 dispensation of justice, and I think that brings me to one question which I, I've been pondering on here, to which I want to ask Mr. Ed, do you think now the current legal education curriculum adequately prepares lawyers, as of now, to live with the challenges posed by case backlog, because you have presented them, you presented a solution, but then is the curriculum still preparing them to address this challenge of case backlog? Thank you. Okay. Uh, I think we have just, we still, the president's emotions, and you see his voice, for me, speaks volumes, but it speaks also about our own frustrations in the system, the burdens that we bear. Uh, now he can raise his voice as loud as that just to express how he feels within himself. Uh, I want to just say before even I come to you asking, I want to just not let some points be lost. The egos on the bench—he called it devil worshiping—that we are hidden behind decor, and we are obliging, "My Lord, most obliged," for a baseless decision. We are obliging for uh bad decisions. These are some of the things that we need to start to address even before we walk the journey with Edison. Now, he's giving us, he, he's pointing us to a future that we indeed are aspiring to. But today and now, I would invite the members of the bar to rally behind the radical new bar and bang the table. Let's bang the table. Uh, the table can't be banged by an individual. Uh, the bar needs to rise up and bang the table collectively. Bang the tables at the courts. Bang the tables at every other office where that is impeding, it is impeding justice. We are struggling as hard as we can to uh begin to bang the table at the GSC, and I know we shall succeed. We shall succeed because these gods of our day uh need to be shaken and thrown off. Thrown off those high-and-mighty stools that they are sitting. Let them serve their servants. Yeah. Maybe just before you go from that point and even get to answer my question. I had one question from the audience because of banging tables. Someone was asking what, what do you mean by radically shock? Like, you explain further, radically shock the system, the judiciary, which is—what are radically shocking, and what do you mean by radically shock? I think it aligns with what you are trying to solve, banging the tables. I think, I think, I think what I meant to say is we as a country must be shocked by what is going on; we must be, you see, until you're shocked by a situation, you can't rise to action; until it, until it affects you, most of the time, most of the—we, we, we feel we are withdrawn and we're indifferent because it is not me right now. Any of us can be in Kiza's shoes. Any of us can be in the shoes of the Kamadongs who now can't obtain freedom because they are sitting in their hands with the, with, with the Supreme Court judgment that is ineffective on their part. The DPP is unbothered. She's unbothered about their plight. We have Kiza Eron who was struggling to have a date for his matter, and when he gets a hearing date, the matter is dismissed on procedure. You must really be shocked. Something is really, really—I even wonder how we're able to practice, how we even able to sleep at night. How do we sleep when our own Eron is, he's detained on no charge? He's detained on no case. How does even the prisons hold him in a different system? uh, he would, would be holding the prisons liable for illegal detention. But now we are all going about business as normal. Until we are shocked by these things here, until we are shocked by uh Kiza's situation, until we are shocked by Justice Bkira's situation, until we are shocked by these things, because you see, even, you see, you see, even, even Justice, even the bench themselves, even the bench are also unbothered about the plight of their own uh when they suffer misfortune; when Bukira was uh her Lord Bukira was, was, was, was unable to serve uh nobody even came out to address her plight, and when we were asked about this, we were told, "No, tread carefully over that issue," there, why is this the case? Why must even this be the case? So until you get shocked, Alfred, we can never rise to action. We must rise. Uh, the bit is every president who is able to rally, and for him, he, he draws his, his, his fire from his own experiences that he, he said he wants to pour a fire, and the fire is either going to cook or burn, and we must write those. We are, we're either saying, "Yes," we are presenting fire, and each of us is carrying the same fire; not one of us, or some of us, it must be all of us. Yes. Now thank you, Eddie. I think that one makes me—I want to read one of the comments from the space. Someone is saying, "We—"

We must challenge ourselves and challenge society to get out of their comfort zones and personally participate in getting solutions for the things that make life not as comfortable as we desire and deserve. I think that’s the reality. We must rally and wake up, saying the backlog is mainly because of the slow dissemination of justice, coupled with the sanctioning of case files by the DPP when we are not contacted yet. People remain for years, equal to or exceeding their sentence, if not convicted. Someone subjecting us to the discussion, then we had have been a number saying the respect for service is lacking in the judiciary; the service commission is not monitoring their presence at their stations. I think it’s because now we don’t have our candidates in the service commission; we’ve been monitoring them closely, but we have been a wonderful audience since 7:00 p.m. It’s getting to 10:00 p.m. I think at this juncture we have the parting shots from Mr. Eddie, then the lawyer’s lawyer will close with his parting shots. Thank you. Okay.

Uh, in my final remarks, so much has been said about reform, but that reform… Okay. Okay. Uh, in my parting remarks, so much has been said about reform. So much has been said about the face of how we enjoy our rights. But none of that is going to come to us on a silver platter. None of us—none of that is going to be served to us. None of that is going to just come to us as we expect. We must bang the table. We must bang the table. We must bang the table. And that is how I would want to even end on that note: Bang the table. Wherever you are, bang the table, for that is the only way we are going to wake up our institutions, wake up our country, and get us back on course to serving our citizens. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your parting, Mr. The seal on call, and before I call on Hson to close the space, I will have to request him to have his parting shots so that we have those shots until next week on Wednesday for episode 9. I hope episode 10 will have a sort of party that will be celebrating 10 years of this episode. But yes, I think this episode is… Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But now let me have Mr. have his parting shots before he comes on to close. Are you home? Yes, I can. You may proceed.

This is radical. This is the appropriate use of digital transformation to create community solidarity and the true role of the in a post-colony to help us muddle out of a colonial contraption. So, to get Ugandans who would otherwise be watching pornography, comedy, and other stupid things, into conversations about democratic institutions, it must be celebrated if it can enter double digits itself. So we insist on a mega-fest; um, speak of it as an option. That’s to compliment my good friend Karanga when he says we are stuck. Judicial culture in Uganda is stuck. We are not stuck. It is—it is—it is part of the effort to get you unstuck. But the legal culture in this country is stuck in 1967. I just wanted to give flesh to that picture because those who have not been appropriately introduced to colonial history may not understand. By 1967, there were no Ugandans in the superior court. They were all foreigners. The then-goal was to Africanize the bench, to move away from, you know, English judges, Indian judges, Pakistani judges, and bring on Nigerians, Ghanaians. I think it was the sublime intellectual Abu Katya who asked what the government has against Uganda, because qualified Ugandans were existing; they were in politics, they were elsewhere, but government could not consider—if the independent government—the idea of giving office to Ugandans. Now, so that created a culture, you know, a cultural dynamic of its own, and an us-versus-them dynamic. Now, that’s the dynamic I think Mr. is talking about, but now almost the bahas are Ugandans, we hope, but there’s still an us-versus-them dynamic, and it’s through their prudence and it’s responsible for your diminishing revenues at the bar; it’s responsible for the apathy you see within the bar; it’s responsible for the decline at the bar; it’s visible for the overall anger—ever-increasing anger—that the public has against the legal system as a whole, because for them they don’t make a distinction. They see lawyers as deal-makers, judges as deal-makers purely. So we share fault with these dinosaurs. Some of you may have fantastic cars, EVs. This one is going to move into a new office very soon, top of the range. But we are stuck. And elected, he can reconcile the contradiction. His law firm, Kala should advocate, is doing all it can to move into the future of legal practice, as our topic says, but it must face the embarrassing, disconcerting reality of having to present submissions on behalf of a class in a judiciary that wants to remain stuck in 1967. The only reason that some of us unite interests with Mr. Esonha is simply because he acknowledges and accepts this embarrassment. He accepts that it affects us together. He accepts that although he may be a child of some fortune, he knows that if things were better, we would all have an equal chance to make something of ourselves, our lives, and our careers as his dad did. Cuz his dad has a fantastic story, you know, of rising from ashes. People don’t know this. I was lucky to get introduced to this story when I was still a student. And when I worked with Justice K, because Justice K had been a partner at K, and we were together now in chambers at the court and we could discuss chamber times, you know, he had—he had so much respect for Mr. hanger, cuz I asked him point-blank, “Tell me, without explanations, did you leave legal practice to choose to come to the judiciary?” The man was earning 5 million shillings as—why does that—this is, you know, I mean 9 million shillings. I was like, “Who does that? Why is it?” Because Mr. Karanga was a bad man? He says, “No, actually, without him there would be no law firm.” He understands practice, the future of practice. So that helped me understand, “Oh, wait a minute, there are lawyers that have always been futuristic.” It’s these lawyers that set the high water mark for the rest of us. Lawyers like Dr. They set the high water mark for the rest of us. I had seen Dr. the first time I’d met him. He had come to speak to us in St. through his—a—is it Africa Leadership Institute, something that started, you know, something to promote values of liberal democracy and everything and what, you know, give us hope that we can actually meaningfully create a generation that can prioritize principle over power; that things like the new constitution, democratic institutions, we are truly people’s institutions. I think that was the idea. I think the most animated way of bringing this home was through a score they did at parliament, and it was very exciting cuz then people understood what parliament does and what their MP does and so—but it made him very popular and they had to stop it. So I was very interested to see this lawyer who could quit parliament and critique parliament and check parliament and then come and even challenge the bar, his own partner. So it is not by mistake and we should not apologize for having different ideas and not being—and being impatient. Sorry, we shouldn’t apologize for being impatient for good. In fact, you’re not calling for reform; we are calling for implementation of what was promised us. I am, as the leader of the banau, I unite interest with Mr. Kanga in no uncertain terms because I am fighting for jobs for many lawyers. Not just jobs for the sake of making money. I’m fighting for the survival, salvation of the bar and legal practice of the future. We can’t be held ransom by the secas world; there has to be a rule, like we were told in South Africa. South Africa, they even removed the—we were told, if you remember Benjamin told us that for them they amended the interim constitution. So the final constitution, the appointing of acting judges, ad hoc judges, temporary judges, doesn’t even reach the judicial service commission. Did he say that? He read section 175. He said yes. He said it doesn’t—the service commission is involved for the, you know, assist me judges; it is the head of division, head of circuit, who writes directly to the minister of justice that I have a situation in my division; I have a situation of backlog in my circuit which I need to resolve quickly. So there’s a roster, a judicial roster for advocates. These things are not very distant from us. These people who liked England and English law don’t even care to understand the transformation of English law and English culture, because if you read—if anybody reads Bailey—that’s the Brit—what’s Bailey? Brit—British and Irish law, you know, information institute—they—you would see that so many of the judgments, especially in Commercial code—Commercial court—Commercial. It’s a commercial code. Yeah. Yes. The bank of judgments are written by temporary judges. The accuses sees now such that, you know, we have a case—we have this deal case—I would like at some point I… I talk about it so that I show people data, because Ugandans like thinking that they know everything; they don’t want to learn anything; the only time they want to—No, they must be forced to learn. I think someone once said it’s because they—they—because of a system where they have to be beaten to learn, abused to learn, insulted to learn. They can’t voluntarily, in a think tank, in a think space, learn. They come with this attitude of “I know, since I know English, I know everything.” But this is how England has been able to maintain its major source of foreign exchange: law and justice. Many contracts declare the laws of England and the High Court of England under the supervision of law, meaning that they can—these matters can still go to an English judge. Why? So England—how has England managed this? We should copy and ask ourselves. We could also be the New England where people declare, “No, no, no. I must go and be before a Ugandan judge.” Those judges don’t… So, I thank you, Edison, for giving us this opportunity. I condemn you a little for not being repetitive in propagating the solution under article 1.2 Sabbatical, because we’ve had some spaces in the last two weeks when I had some time. The point I have made is that we are our worst enemies. Very many lawyers with whom we practice law no longer believe in principle. They don’t like the fineness of principle. They don’t defend it; they don’t nourish it. The late Mar said it better. We don’t—those are people who read raw materials, not law materials. You know this is—it’s—it’s the proof of the pudding is in the eating. So we ourselves have become addicted to power, negotiate and transact and do our dispute resolution counting on power and might instead of principles and rights. We brag about power. I have my gamb—what do you—what do they call it? Gamb—I forget the word, but I think it’s a very important—Yes. It’s a very important lexone—gambog is not limited to the marketplace; it has entered the legal system too, and some people are so scared when we see article 142 sub article 2; the real worry for them is that ah, gamb will be too much. Are you getting me? Excellent. And we have to be honest with them and say, “Yes, things shall get bad and worse before we get better.” That’s it. That’s the only way nations have arrived at the shining cast. Things have gotten so much bad, and at radical we are intent on putting out the fire. It’s yours to use; it either burns you or you cook with it. But for us, we are force multipliers; we are energy generators. We signed out long before, handed over power to you this year. We found our power. We encourage all of you to do the same. There is so much power in this thing. Mr. Khanga is saying advocates who have practiced for more than 10, 15, 20 years, with some ethical fidelity, with demonstrable doctrinal fidelity, should be able to step in, you know, an invitation by head of division; even we don’t even need a chief justice; we should be talking about amending article 142 sub article 2 to give the power not to just the chief justice but to heads of divisions, as they use Africa—this is what we should be talking about now, but because the thing has been there like a museum piece, we have never used it. Many advocates, many judges on call are seeing it for the first time. In fact, when it came up for interpretation, the whole court got it wrong by 4 to 1. Now it’s before the Supreme Court, and we don’t know how they will rule. If we don’t keep discussing it from the root, they might also rule badly and lock us out. Could the constitutional court of Uganda lock out lawyers from a constitutional property they’re entitled to, and the bar doesn’t rise up in arms? Well, I wasn’t president then; I’m president now, and we shall rise up in arms. Section, paragraph 62 and 63 in the lead judgment of Justice in the court case of Kabumba must be clarified in the way we are advocating for here in the Kohhanga spaces. I beg to submit. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much, Mr. From your… I see the major source of foreign exchange in England is justice. So I’m already imagining Uganda where we have also land justice as the major source of foreign exchange. I’m having some—I want to pass before I call Mr. M. Say also in Masak, having a problem of case backlog; there’s a problem at high court; there’s only one judge who has replaced one of the two judges pending return from the one on study, and it’s very shocking. I think when you had—from one time mentioning this—this is one who said, “Thanks, thanks for always teaching the law,” then there is saying, “Because of guest backlog, or we know markets full of clients…” With… That—thank you, thank you Alfred. Um, thank you so much, Eddie, for the time you’ve given us and for your thoughts. Thank you so much. Um, Isaac, president of the Uganda Law Society, President Isaac Samaki, for your very kind and generous words. I also—I’m sure that I speak for Dr. El Karoha, um, who I saw on the space earlier. I don’t know if he’s still on, and I—and I—I am sure I speak for him to say thank you very much for those very kind and generous words. I think the point has been made, and I couldn’t make it more eloquently than the president of the law society has just made it. The article 142 is constitutional property that was given to the bar. It is a constitutional check upon which the citizens of this country can be able to bank that there shall be no backlog. And as one American once said, “We cannot accept the notion that the bank of justice is bankrupt.” And article 142, this constitutional property for the bar, allows the bar to continue serving the wider public. So I don’t think that anything more that I can say can really help to express my agreement on this point, and I think I’m also very grateful to everybody who’s joined us, and I think as according to Alfred’s rules we shall certainly be closing. We’ve—we’ve—we’ve—I think this is probably one of our most attended spaces. I’m sure it is because of the presence of the president of the law society, who is in his own right a serious and leading thinker on these issues, and also because of the presence of Eddie, who is also in his own right a serious and leading thinker on these issues, and for us we are really honored and privileged. I’m sure I also speak for Alfred when I say this, and for Masi Chamutai who was on earlier but I don’t know what has happened to her now, and for Elaine who I also saw on earlier but I don’t see her now. I don’t know if she still is on. The what we’ve been trying to do in these conversations is we’ve been trying to bring the light, because light is the best disinfectant. We have a constitutional provision that is there. Can we enforce it? This constitutional provision has these opportunities. Can they be availed? I think that’s the main point. But for everybody who has joined us, we are very grateful to you. I think it’s now time for us to close the space and wind up. Yes.

I don’t know if I can hear you. You slowed us down. Hello. Can—Can we hear? Can you all hear me? Yes. Yes, we can hear you. I thought technology had slowed me down. At the risk of sounding—at the risk of being immodest or a bad man, I would like to intervene, you know. Yes. But it—to you as you have been doing it to witnesses of the state—that to have good sleep. When we come to your space and we show you the root and heart of the matter and you don’t show us a direction, what are you going to do about paragraph 62 and 63 in the judgment of the conino court in constitutional petition number—is it 16 of 2023—which could easily be affirmed, and then we shall be practicing in the graveyard while the rest of the world moves on. Are you getting me? Where’s your anger? Legal ingenuity that is highly paid for. Promise us that you’re going to do something. You’re not just talking. Do you have to first be elected to do something? This is—this is—this is my—my predominant—being just an addition to doing what he’s going to—No, no, no. This—this is an—Okay. We—We can’t be a dead bar. We have been that. Okay. Everyone knows the rules of this country. You can also—the house is open for business. We want leaders when they emerge to lead us, whether they are elected or not, just like his father’s father began the tradition of calling it and living before they flee. Mhm. Yes. Hello. Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Yes. Did he voluntarily stop representing him as an MP? He did. He did, and concentrate on other things. He did. He was unheard of. He did, and he has provided leadership without being elected. So following the same footsteps, how was leadership? M—okay, okay—show us leadership; do something decorous; otherwise we have to take things into our own hands, and then you will be picking up pieces of an indicorous approach. Okay, do something. If you come back for these spaces when you have done nothing, we shall love you up with… Use examples of bad legal and judicial culture. Show us something of exemplary legal culture. Bring that K University training onto full display by this time next week. Promise us here and now that you will find the words, put them in the right paper, so that the rest you see is a community like any other. When we have rising stars like you with—with—with—with public-mindedness, we must not invite you to complies. Okay? It’s quite dangerous. So we must also be as harsh on you as we are to those who have brought—who have—whose thinking and culture has brought us here. We shall not tolerate compulsions in—we can’t keep talking. This is the eighth series; the ninth series must be about action and doctrinal fidelity. People must see what—what—what we mean by doctrinal fidelity. They must see it. But I—so my young brother involved the company. This is how we have been. We attack team me and—Mhm. I had to put aside and share time. So there you go. You don’t have to give a promise or a pledge; it’s enough on me, and then I can hold busy with this case and everything, but you have enough soldiers at your disposal. This—what do you mean by the way, enough fun? So show us something, and we believe—some people can’t believe without seeing when they’re not holding something. I—I have to file petition number 16 of 24 without filing it, say this man is just wasting time, but they couldn’t call me a time waster because I had put something in a system; I had shown them that this man is occupying an office illegally. This man is an ambassador of colonial relics. He occupies the office that is supposed to be—reading that of colonial relics—the department to read. This man—the laws of Uganda, revised notice to misleading provisions and everything. How many of you are satisfied that both are gone? It was a submission of my…

Brother Edu, that colonial proceduralism of the country is the cause of backlog in Uganda. It may as well be the beginning of a sentence. I have a client who is a victim; an arrest here in Uganda means that all the rest of the remedies under the law are no longer in reach. That is why, as president of the bar, I submit myself to your nonsense freely. My brother Edson failed immediately to seek relief from an unlawful sentence, and he will get the answer after close to 90, 90 days. Really? Yeah. That's it. It will be 3 days shy of 90 days. This is backlog.

I am happy that we are alive to celebrate each other because when I heard of the outcomes of the Mikatanga Bay rulings, I called you and I said that's unacceptable, and you mustn't accept it. I don't usually involve myself in people's matters, but as always, you gave me time. We listen, and I told you, listen, you do whatever you do, but the lead legal prince trust is going to hold the judicial enterprise in Uganda as a whole accountable. We wrote our article; it's online, showing the judicial history. This is how can a judge fight an Amin law, section 145? Those things were introduced by Idi Amin to manage a problem of condoism that they had then; they should have been gotten rid of. Now a chief justice proudly writes chief justice bail guidelines and reintroduces—I mean—things which a judge of the high court had done away with in the case of Allay versus Uganda. A judge's prerogative par has no business deciding for me how I should say the case. The previous ruling just repeated the same thing. All that is now washed away for lawyers because you don't defend principle. You don't curate the law. You just—you treat it as donuts in a canteen and you treat judges as, you know, canteen keepers. You line up; it's break time in the sand. They are serving donuts with your cups. That's how backlog emerges. You are not defenders of principle. You do nothing for us. We didn't do anything. We don't—there was—we sued—we sued the state of Uganda for his decision in the Masanga case. I didn't need your permission, but as a colleague, I mean, I pressed that you—you know—you encouraged me to try. It's a court which moves slowly, because—but this is not about us now. It's about vision. Those who come in will find a decision challenging Uganda's main culture. [Music] Much pride if I'm still there, get to be part of [Music] the moment that defend legal culture while the rest of you are there talking these things in WhatsApp groups. So let us not introduce ourselves among us; let's do [Music] some while we still alive to, you know, close with—we have given you our fire. You can't just ignore it and hungry people. So, what's the way forward?

Okay. Um, thank you for that. I—I had the president of the law society putting it to me the way I've been putting it to some friends of mine. In fact, one of the reasons why we have to close the space very soon is I need to go and plan to put some things to someone tomorrow. Um, but um, I think the point, Alfred, was that you—or was that Isaac? It was Isaac. You proceed. Okay. I—but I think the point um which you're making is a strong point that we have to move from words into action, and you are saying is it only when you get elected? Of course, being elected would also be good. Oh, can you hear me? I can be heard. Yes. Okay. So I think the question was um, how do we move this thing from words into action? How do we make sure that we are in a position to push this discussion forward? And I want to assure everybody who is listening, including the president of the law society president. I want to assure everybody who is listening that we shall certainly be moving very soon from thin paper into thick action, and um, we shall certainly be moving to a certain place and putting some ideas on paper, and not just ideas, but actually putting forward the case that we are—that we have been making in these spaces. What we—the first stage of this argument has been about the attempt to generate a consensus through these conversations. The next step must be an attempt to enforce this principle—this principle of uh, what I've—what—what—what you've called constitutional property—and we shall certainly be enforcing it. At now, take the assurance from me uh that certainly action will be taken for us to make sure that we enforce what we're doing, and with a few friends, we've already begun discussing certain things.

It is however time for us to start winding up this space. It has been my singular honor, as someone famously said, and great pleasure to have you all here. It has been my singular honor and great pleasure to have the committee member for Eastern Uganda, Mr. Edin Angulu. Um, Humphrey Hateka was supposed to be on, but we had some technical difficulties, but I see he has stayed on throughout, and I'm sure we shall be able to engage with him soon. It has been my honor to have the president of the Uganda Law Society, Mr. Isaac Seakadi. Uh, President Isaac Makad, who has, as usual, put things to me and uh, with characteristic style, we shall make sure that we answer better than some of my friends have been answering, and um, it has been my great pleasure to have everybody here. It is—it is said that it is good when brethren meet together in unity. It is said that iron sharpens iron. It is said that uh, we—we—we create ideas from the marketplace or by discussing them and refining them and sharpening them before we can deploy them into action. And we shall very soon be deploying these ideas into action. But for now, and from me and from everybody here, allow me, colleagues and friends, to thank you so much for joining us. Um, to wish you all a wonderful evening, to wish you—to wish you all a wonderful evening, and as we say on these pieces every week and every Wednesday, from all of us here to all of you there, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. Oh, it's coming.