Conversations from the corridors and frontline of justice.

Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Yes, please unmute. Yeah, thank you. And even I've sent your request as a speaker. Your request to join as a speaker. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you for those who have joined us. We shall be beginning in the next two minutes. You could just use this two minutes to share the link with your colleagues, to also use this time to share the link with your colleagues to also settle in to listen.

One. Good morning. One. Good morning, good afternoon from wherever you have joined us today. For those who have joined us on Thank you for she's a formidable legal mind. Most of you may have come across Naz. She's a formidable legal mind. Most of you may have come across her in the court corridors trying to ensure access to justice. She has also served in different capacities.

Still joining us today, Mr. S.B. SJ. MON is the national coordinator for Justice Centers Uganda. He's a very passionate advocate ensuring that justice reaches those who really need it—the poor ones, the vulnerable ones, and those at the grassroots. So from the courtrooms, from the courtroom corridors to the front line of legal aid, we have two passionate advocates who are here to share their powerful stories, to share bold insights, and immediate reforms needed for our justice system. You're most welcome, Mr. It's your turn to say hi to us, introduce our today's guests, and we dig deep into the conversation.

This is a great honor to be here. Um, thank you Raymond, thank you Marci, thank you Alfred, and thank you everybody who has joined us on our reggae conversations. As you all know, nobody can stop reggae, and uh we are extremely honored to have Mr. Eron Basij and Miss Anarunji. These are two well-known names within legal circles in the practice of law. They have offered themselves for service. At one time, I think Eron was our CEO at the Uganda Law Society. I know An has served on the ULS council. Um, they are also formidable legal practitioners in their own right—in private commercial practice, Ankarunji, and in um as a coordinator of justice centers, Aaron Basij. And I think these sort of conversations bring a fantastic perspective to access to justice, to the corridors of justice, and to how we can make justice just because. Because justice at its core must be just, and because lawyers are the firebrand of society. It is my honor and privilege to have these fantastic, able lawyers, well known in legal circles, people who have something incredible to contribute, and of course, welcoming everybody who has joined us and saying good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to you from wherever you're joining us from, and I want to start with you, and how are you? Good evening. And am I clear? Am I loud and clear? Very loud. Very clear. Amazing. So once again, I thank you for inviting me to such an, have such a, you know, a timely conversation in such a space. Yeah, I'm glad to be here. It's our honor to have you, Eron. Over to you. How are you this evening?

Yes, good evening and listeners. Really been a very great opportunity uh for me to participate as a speaker. I've keenly followed this conversation as a listener in the various series and with this group of our clients, especially the clients that I represent, be on the topic, and I'm glad of that category of people who form the majority of the Ugandans whom we all, all in one way or the other, whom we have offered help. So, it is an honor for me, and uh I hope that we will have a very beautiful discussion. Thank you for the invite once again.

Uh, thank you so much Eron for for that fantastic introduction, and maybe we'll start with you. We usually begin with this question um to both panelists, and we'll start with you Eron. Just if you could briefly tell the listeners about yourself, very briefly about yourself, about what makes you tick, what makes your blood boil, what makes your heart beat faster, just tell us something about Mr. Aaron Bessie J.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, my name is again B Eron. I'm currently the national coordinator of Justice Centers Uganda. Justice Centers Uganda is a government of Uganda project established within the judiciary by the Previously, I also worked with Uganda as again head of the legal project, and we I think many many of you knew me from from that angle. We made expansion of the legal project to 22 clinics before I crossed and and served as the treasurer of the Uganda Law Society. Um, I think we are the pioneers even among the group that the current one, and that's brief actually about me. What drives me in my for the rest of my life right away from from the law school, I have served that community of the vulnerable, and uh I feel is my niche, but also it is my passion to say that justice is also served to those vulnerable communities whom we actually, in most cases, disregard. Thank you.

Thank you Aron, and thank you for being um moved by the plight, there somewhere where it's written that whoever cares for these the least of my brothers, I don't know if it's a song. I think it's a verse. Raymond is telling me it's a verse. You know Raymond is scripturally perpendicular. He says it's a verse. Whoever cares for these the least of my brothers, they care for me. What what about you An, tell us about yourself, An Karunji? What makes you tick? What makes you boil? What makes your heart beat faster?

Thank you. Yes. Once again, my name is An Karunji. I'm an advocate of the High Court of judicature in this country and the owner of a law firm known as Partners Advocates and Solicitors. Like mentioned, I have served on the executive council of the Uganda Law Society and also unsuccessfully ran for president. I was sent to Taiwan, but that's okay. I will try another time. My area—I'm I'm passionate about the rule of law. Whenever called on any forum to discuss matters to do with the rule of law, I am I will I will jump onto the topic and I will present myself. I am passionate about the rule of law and the upholding and respect for fundamental human rights, because everything that we do, our profession, the you know, delivery of services in this country is hinged on the respect of fundamental human rights and the rule of law, because if the law is not allowed to rule, then we will find ourselves in a state of panarchy. So that is why we cannot shy away on issues to do with the rule of law and the respect and upholding of fundamental human rights. In as much as I'm a very good litigation lawyer, anytime you have a case and you need someone who will, you know, learn to be available. Thank you.

I I I I agree with that last bit. Um, we know the fire in the belly that comes to the practice of the law. And I'd like to stop there. You know, we've been prosecuting a case on this basis for over I think three months now. of the particularly the backlog that's arising. Maybe he's on now again. Let's let's see if let's see if you can hear. I've been relegated to using another for now. My question is that important. I can I have to ask it through as many forums as possible. But An, we we just wanted your initial thoughts on case backlog in the courts of Uganda. What are your initial thoughts about it? How do you think that we should solve it? Do you think it's a problem to start with?

Uh, thank you very much. Of course, case backlog is a is a big problem in this country. Case backlog is one of the pressing issues that is we are facing as a nation. Um, for example, if you look at a case in point, the commercial court, there is a time I think that was sometime last year when I had a conversation with an officer from the Uganda and he was telling me an trillions of shillings or billions of shillings that are tied up in the commercial and he said that the World Bank is willing to facilitate anyone who will provide a solution on how to unlock the that is held up in court cases in the commercial court because it affects all development or econ the economic progress of a nation. Investors who come into the country find themselves you know tied up or their you know their investments tied up in matters you know that cannot move. So you find that there is a glaring and big issue that if it is not addressed, if solutions are not found, then we are bound to lose out as a country, and that is why spaces like this and conversations like this are pertinent and timely.

Yes. Um, can you also tell us a bit about the non-commercial cases, the case backlog that's stuck in the non-commercial, and and I mean you did mention that you love human rights, the rule of law, and some of the cases that are for example at the high court. What do you have to say about the backlog in in in the courts there? I like an example, but backlog is everywhere in land matters. There's a time under the land matter in the court of appeal which started I think in 19—I wasn't born in 19—is it 60 something, then the children, the people who had filed that suit, it was a landmark, died; their children took over the case. I was handling it I think with the ch—the children took over the case; the children died; the grandchildren took over the case. So by the time, let me by the time the matter was—the judgment of the court of appeal was delivered which was in 2015 or something, just imagine how the status quo had changed; families who are waiting for the fruits of justice had passed on. Now if there wasn't anyone to inherit the case, that means that it would be absurd for such a family. So now those are the issues that are facing us as a nation. You find that by the time someone realizes their books of justice, either the parties have met in their villages and settled the matters or you know they are no longer interested when the land has changed hands or someone has taken it. So backlog is critical and serious and it affects all courts, topics in the court of appeal. They told us that it will take how many acts to reduce the backlog by half. I've forgotten the statistics, but you find that right now they might be even hearing cases of 20 2015, 2014, 201—. So it's a glaring problem.

Yes. I I think there are more than 12,000 appeals currently pending in the court of appeal. Um, and counting.

Yes. Thank you madame. You have painted a really fair picture of case backlog in commercial courts and how it is affecting the commercial interest of the country. But just taking information to the vulnerable ones, I will I will go to Mr. Eron. Mr., as the coordinate of justice as Uganda, you understand you are the front line of access to justice by the vulnerable, so because you seem to serve the country's most vulnerable litigants, now based on your front line experience, do you believe Ugandan courts are accessible to ordinary citizens, the vulnerable ones, in terms of cost, physical distance, fairness, transparency, and even do they even know what happens in court? Because you deal with the poor, the poor ones, the illiterate ones, our access by the courts to the people you serve.

Thank you. Um, thank you very much. Uh, but briefly, I just wanted to add some things more on on on what my colleague An said on the the the impact of the case backlog and also and basically on human rights. As someone who has been really in the trenches especially uh protecting the rights of the vulnerable, I want you to to paint a picture, you know, matters because of case backlog, we are having people who have been kept on remand for years. Just just um last week we have someone who came to our office seeking for legal representation, and the suspect has been on remand for 84 years. Mind you, this is a suspect. The presumption of innocence is is is a nonderogable right. But someone has been has been on, and his case has never been heard. Just imagine—I'm I'm sure thank God that many of us listening here have never been have never been to prison. At least as prisoners—I know we have been to prison to to to to get instructions or maybe to acquire information from our clients for test purposes—but even a single day in prison is enough to change the entire life of an individual in a negative way. So we are having so many people languishing in prison innocently because of this case backlog. Their rights have been shattered. Their families have been shattered. Some of them are coming back when their wives have been taken, when their husbands have been have been taken away. Their properties have been taken away. And and and for me as someone who has been defending the vulnerable, we find exactly that the rich have used and taken advantage of of the case back situation to fight civil matters criminally. If I have learned and we are fighting with somebody somebody who whom I know that cannot afford to to have their way through the system, then I frame a criminal case against the person. And most cases now the cases they have been framing people is is defilement. So that they slam on you a charge of defilement, and by the time you kill yourself coming back to to accept to predict on cases they they never even committed. So we we are finding so many innocent people just running around now with with with conviction on their own, but because of the circumstances and having their cases um because their cases could not be had within time. So we can go on and on and on and and speak about the effect of case backlog within within within our system, and it is very very very sad that especially when it comes to human rights that people are being violated, violently abused by the system that is actually meant to protect them. Now in terms of accessibility um of our vulnerable communities, it is a tall order. It's a third order because we all know that the majority of the people whom we represent cannot even afford transport to come to court. I can assure you that we have a special fund for that; we give to some of our clients who cannot afford on a scheduled uh debt. These are the type of clients that exactly that, especially the rich that are taking advantage of. They know that you can you cannot uh navigate yourself through this complicated legal system because we know that Look, look for example, get the system at high court at high court level, and most of the cases now that where especially land grabbers using that as as as a means to deprive these people. So what happens, for example, the poor person can never present themselves at the court, no, at the high court level; you don't you even don't know how to, even the judges don't even listen to you, breaking…

Eron, I think you're breaking and you're making a powerful point. I think I'm I was waiting for Eron to come back. He's basically saying that backlog and delay have become the refuge of the scoundrel, the land grabber, and the thug, and that poor people have no access to justice, that they cannot navigate the system at the high court. They cannot navigate the system. They cannot prepare the pleadings that are necessary for themselves, and they can't even get audience or hearing before their ships. I think Eron, you're back.

Yes, I'm back. Sorry, I think the the network had some interruption. We can hear you now loud and clear. Just the cost itself, the cost of representation is very very expensive. I can assure you, let me tell you, it's not the people that represent, even among lawyers, can never um where we actually to contribute money for for our colleagues who are having difficulties, especially to maintain themselves. So we we having those lawyers. So if I'm not talking about this these vulnerable communities within within our communities are even ourselves lawyers as vulnerable. So in terms of geographical coverage again, the fact that we having a barrier a barrier for example for on accessibility, these local people first of all they don't even have transport, they the distance from where they are to courts and to other justice institutions are very very far, and and and they need to give real credit where it is due to thank the judiciary that has tried so much to decentralize especially at at the magistrate level where they have really really gone—now we are almost having every at least one—that's a big plus, that's a big plus—and and and that is that's done maybe 10 20 years ago um but that still remains a big itself a big challenge. Yes, we are having for example the there, but we having another arm of government that is not as facilitated as the courts, for example, when you look at the DPP, these are the challenges that we keep facing: you reaching the court, there is a magistrate, but there's no situte the matter, so you find a redundant grade one magistrate but having no cases to hear because they can never we can never have. So um if we are going to talk and and it will come maybe areas of discussion, we need to have reforms that are cut across all justice institutions and not having just one institution shining and leaving others um behind. Yes. So that's that's that's what I really say in terms of that, and we we we find that even in terms of fairness, our communities and and and and here we have both perception and real corruption within within the court system, and that one further complicates the the type of clients that we present. They they don't have money; they cannot bribe their way within the system. Even when you know that bribery is is really um unprofessional, but we all know we live in Uganda, what what how it takes even just having your cases heard; if you find by l—gets gets misplaced, even to find it itself you must you must pay the court, and we all know this, many many of us on this forum we have done that, we have facilitated, so facilitated to the law cls to have our way our way within the system. So that's for now, that's what I can reiterate; I know we can spend the entire night discussing about these challenges.

Thank you so much Mr. I know Mr. And painted a picture of the impact of this battle, access to justice. We have also painted a real picture of how the system is complicated for others to access justice and how courts are being used by land grabbers to grab land instead of maybe others getting access to justice or or to have their land recovered. At this point, I understand Mi must be having a burning question to to ask either of you. So Mi, you could first unmute and ask your question. Thank you please.

I'm not sure that we can hear you. Mi, yes, yes you can.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much for your feedback. My question is to um and looking at your position as a managing partner at the firm, different to get different judgments and different land. My question is judgments you're getting and the quality of your experience in dealing with the different courtrooms, because obviously as as a lawyer your bread is battered in these different courtrooms and your ability to get quality judgments for your clients and judgments that come at the right time as well. So I'd like to understand what your experience is and whether you appreciate that that's happening in the different courts at this particular time. Thank you.

Thank you very much for that question. uh from my years of experience uh in terms of quality of judgments, if you look at the judgments from the courts of record, that is the high court, court of appeal, and the supreme court, they are not as bad, they are not as bad, but when you look at judgments from the lower courts like the magistrate courts, as them are oblivious of the law or the position of the law as it stands, be a few of course eyebrow-raising judgments from let's say the high court whereby you get a judgment and you know that either with all due respect to our judicial officers that either a judicial officer has either been compromised, is a gambit to another person who is a party to the Yes, maybe there are other powers that be that have influenced the outcome of the decision, because if you look at uh our judges in the court of appeal, the high court, and these are you know good caliber judges, at least they have they have a good appreciation of the law. So when they choose to clo—they say they call it close your eye, they call blind your eye or close one eye. When they choose to close one eye in writing a decision, either they have done that knowingly and are pretending to be oblivious. So you receive a judgment and you're in total shock and you're wondering, my god, did this judge just, or and maybe it can also be maybe a le judge can just tell the…

Legal assistant, do the research, write a decision, type it. But those are pockets—what, in the courts of record? I would say those are pockets, pockets of judgments that we receive here and there that we know the reasons—even we, the lawyers, know why it has turned out the way it is. Yeah. But if it comes to these other lower courts, there is a need for ample training.

There's a matter that I was handling in one of the magistrate courts in Bali, and there was a mother who was being denied uh joint custody with the father of her child. And when I read the judgment—because I had called, I had been called in and the file had been brought to me for purposes of filing an appeal—so when I read the judgment of this magistrate, she said the mother was acting funny. I will not award custody to the mother because she was acting funny. She was, she went to the boy's school and she was acting funny. In total disbelief, I had to go and face the magistrate to ask her, “Your Worship, please explain to me what did you mean in your decision by saying the mother was acting funny? You deny a mother the right to have custody of her child. You must have sound legal reasoning. Either she’s of unsound mind, either she’s violent and harsh towards her child, either she has not been in the life of her child since inception.” So, by the time you give legal reasoning—those, I mean a reasoned judgment—you must have a sound judgment that has legal reasons why you’re denying a parent access to their child. But in the lower benches, there is a need for ample training of magistrates. You find that innocent parties suffer the consequences. If you have a lawyer who is also well in it for the money, maybe not to see that justice is done, he might not proceed to appeal the matters. So you find that the party, you know, suffers or is denied justice because of failure by these magistrates to appreciate the law.

Um, so you find that in the courts, in the superior courts, yeah, we have eyebrow-raising decisions where we are reading and there is no reasoning. There are some decisions you receive from the courts of record, but those are, like I said, appeal whereby there is no legal reasoning also. The man just comes and, you know, throws the paper there: if you want to appeal, appeal. Yeah. And in terms of timeliness, of course, I will say there is no timeliness of decision-making, of output of judgments. You find that you file a case in, let’s say, 2022, and it’s a commercial decision, and to date you have not received a decision. It’s a commercial, you know, claim involving a lot of money, and to date you have not received a decision. So you find that there are many land matters, like I said earlier; you find that parties die, land changes hands because there is no timely delivery of judgments. Then also, I, yeah, I think basically that is it. You have a problem: either the judges—you find that some judges are lazy—and I keep wondering, if you know that you’re going to be less than natural, because you know, if you know you’re naturally lazy, why do you apply to be a judge? If you know that you want to judge so many things out there, why do you apply? Because remember that you people are looking to you for access to justice; people are looking to you for justice. You go to court, the judges will leave. There’s a, there’s a, there’s a case I’m handling in Jinja. The first time I went there, the judge was on transfer. Another time I went there, there was a new judge who had assumed office and gone on leave. If I have a client who is in Canada now, this matter has taken almost two years without a hearing. Either the judge is on transfer, the judge is on leave, the judge is handling a criminal session somewhere. So you find that it paints, first of all, a big, a bad picture to us lawyers who have already been paid legal fees. We are facilitated to handle these cases, but it also paints a bad picture to the judiciary of Uganda because these guys in developed economies—that’s not how they work. There’s a time I told him, “You know what, you have to wake up because of the time zones; you have to wake up early. I’m going to tell you to create a Zoom meeting for you.” The man woke up—is it at 3:00 a.m. Canadian time or something? I don’t know. He sat in and he said, “And I’m alone here. Where are the people?” I told him, “Unfortunately, the judge is not in office.” So it is really, there is no timely—like you asked—there is no timely delivery of judgments. The judiciary needs to wake up from their sleep, and also the quality of decisions at the lower bench is very wanting. There is a need for adequate training of those magistrates. Yes.

Yeah. I remembered why, when Mr. everyone was submitting, you almost even started giving reforms which need to be done urgently, and I think I’ve been a victim of—not even on the judic—not being present at court, but when was mentioning of—set is not being enough to also serve justice. It’s a matter where I’m on watch brief and I’ve appeared with my witnesses for like few occasions, and every time he’s not around, and then we have to get another state journey. Matters—at one point I almost felt like, “Why do we do private?” And I lead my witnesses and I go away. So it painted a picture that maybe the whole justice sector needs reforms—not only maybe judiciary, not only the state attorney, also the DPP, like everyone in need of some reforms. So from that point, my question to Mr.—from your experience, you have worked with ULS now with justice centers. What immediate reforms can we—are needed to enable access to justice, like both in the whole justice sector because it involves judiciary, even private practice. So what, what immediate reforms can we employ to have access to justice to everyone, even these ones who are maybe commercially aware of how they can access justice? Thank you. Thank you. And um, the listeners once again.

First of all, we need to note that uh we need comprehensive reforms of the justice institutions, and and and we will have no solution or one formula that fits all, because all these justice institutions are unique, unique in in nature. Um, for example, look at the judiciary. We have been talking about the case backlog. What do we, what do we need to reduce the case backlog, and and and and for me, and for me there’s no shortcut: if clear the existing cases and stop, um, and find a mechanism of actually stopping new cases being filed within within the judicial system, party. I have like three solutions. One, you—we all know that under Article 142 of the Constitution, it empowers actually the the judiciary and and government to have a mechanism where we can actually employ people, treat people who can act as temporary judges. And we all know that if we don’t do that, we—the problem of case backlog is not going to end now or even the next 20 years. But if we employed temporary judges, we would actually clear these backlogs within the next 3 years, and and and then we start on a clean slate, because we all know that these temporary judges—first of all, um, it is, it is a cost-effective—employing one judge, one judge alone, for example, you know, a a new judge now comes with um a brand new car which will not cost less than almost 500 million, a labor, bodyguards, what all those costs are, and we would actually do away with such a cost. So it would be cost-effective for us to have temporary judges to be deployed and clear of these these cases within the system being filed. There are certain systems that should not be within the system that just clog the system for nothing. And that’s—I give you an example—for example, that the cases we handle at at justice centers—by the way, 80% of the cases we resolve at justice centers, we resolve, we resolve them in our offices—court system because actually it—we, we found that some of these cases don’t need to enter the court system through alternative dispute resolution. So why we actually not encourage and have more, more centers that actually would actually help in in in in mediation—med—would actually help to mitigate some of these cases coming into the what, the mainstream system. So that would actually—one of the things is that the the state should actually take its full responsibility and establish a state legal aid scheme that is going to help the poor, the vulnerable, and also um increase on on on the number of cases that are actually resolved within within a given year. And and and this is the argument we have been making um to the state: the cost-benefit analysis of providing state uh legal aid uh scheme to the nation, and it has actually shown that it would be very cost-effective if the government—that would actually help in addressing some of those barriers of access to justice. The third would be us [Music] um coming back into into our formal, our informal system. The research has been shown that majority of the people actually um 80% of the people of of our clients that we serve believe in the local, the local council court system, the in traditional system, in the religious system, and these are doing a very great role in in actually in enabling some of these cases that are not reaching the system. And and for me, my role—I mean my my suggestion would be that we need to strengthen even those institutions; we need to strengthen the cultural institution; we need to strengthen the religious mechan, the religious mechanism in conflict resolution; and also we need to strengthen the local council court system because some of those cases that actually are coming in into the system should be resolved at the local council level. We should not allow them to come up to the court system, and we only reserve the worthy, complicated cases that could be filed within the system and not allow every case to just to pass through into into the administration of justice mechanism. Um, that’s really my thought with regard to the possible reforms that we can—and I want to talk about about the first point that that Erin has spoken about: the appointment of temporary judges. And you’ve just given us an example of the ability to have a court hearing by Zoom where only the litigant is present, having woken up at 3:00 a.m. in Canada. Would, would you agree with me—because we’ve been making this argument here and actually I don’t know your position on it—we’ve been making the argument that where the state of the business of the court so requires, and it is my contention that if an advocate of the seniority and caliber of an is driving to Jinja for two years looking for one day to be heard—just one day in two years—and there’s no judicial, there’s no time for her on the judicial calendar, then the state of the business requires that more hands be put on deck. And what is your view on the issue of Article 142 to the use of the bar as the temporary reserve for the courts—that when the courts are overwhelmed, lawyers jet in, solve the problem, and then go back to their practice? Thank you very much.

Uh, the issue of mission-based judges has uh is your—I think hashtag or whatever that you’re calling for—mission-based judges or judges on the mission in line with Article 142, I think, is timely. The economic development and progress of our country is—why don’t we have specialized courts? You know, maybe some of these judges keep delaying matters because they don’t understand them—with all due respect to who our judges—that I, I use the word some, who not all. So my take is, why don’t we have, for example, specialized courts? We have the commercial court handling all commercial matters; it handles construction law matters; it handles intellectual property matters. And you can find that some of these judges that are sent to the commercial are not experts in intellectual property; they are not experts on construction law. So we are saying that why don’t we have specialized courts so that we have specialized lawyers who are specialized in a specific field, in line with the provision of the Constitution, coming with a mission and a mandate to do a way to handle those cases because they’re coming in as experts within their specialty, and uh they set up court structures for them and they say, “Now, like Ellison, we are appointing you a judge, and we are giving you a mandate to handle these matters for a period of one year. We are giving you about 40 construction law cases because you are a construction lawyer, and we are creating a construction law court under the commercial court, under the opera, under the commercial court; we have we have the construction law court.” So you come in as a legal expert, and uh they’re giving you—have you—you know, your mandate. If you have not delivered—because these things of appointing judges without any—I don’t know if they have uh they have to meet deliverables; I don’t know if they are strict deliverables to say, for example, you’re appointed and you’re given these case files; if within your first one or two years of appointment we see that you are not performing, the Judicial Service Commission will recall you; the Judicial Service Commission will recall you. So the whole issue—you have this judge, a specialist in in construction law, under the construction—handling only construction law cases. You have another mission-based judge like Anundi—intellectual property law cases under the intellectual property law case. So you find that how many cases do not die under the weight of—I am green about intellectual property. So let me keep adjourning that file. I am green on uh construction law. So let me—handling that involves uh international treaties, international treaties and diplomatic immunities under the Vienna Convention. So you find that uh some of the—I, I saw a ruling by a judge that was oblivious of the diplomatic immunities and privileges act, oblivious of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Immunities—as then you find that guys are oblivious guys. And so you find that a judge is admitting a c, a a a country as a party to a suit which cannot happen under the Vienna Convention without that party ratifying or accepting to w its diplomatic immunity and be admitted as a party. So there are complex legal issues. So you find that judges—we need specialized courts for matters like that. So yes, the issue of mission-based uh judges or judges on a mission under that provision of the Constitution is timely for our country, and I think that uh we need to do further engagement with uh parties that matter, you know, state organs, parliament, uh the judiciary itself—write a paper so and and cite some of these things so that it is actually put in practice. Yes.

Yes. Thank you so much. I think you made a very clear case uh for mission-based judges, and maybe if we could switch this to Erin and and come to you—the rationale for mission-based judges seems very clear, very outright. What, what do you think is is the thinking of the judiciary? How would the judiciary approach um the conversation of mission-based judges, given your intricate knowledge of them?

Um, thank you here. I want, I want to speak to [Music]—know, speak for the judiciary, how they think—work closely with them. Um, but this is, this is, this is this is my really my personal view. I think internally the Chief Justice is actually open to that. On various occasions, the Chief Justice has actually hinted on it, and it is a possibility that I think—given the Minister of Justice is actually open to it—is a possibility that should actually be taken by um together with the President so that we actually actualize it. We have no any other way resolving the case backlog unless we, we first—we have those mission-based judges or or temporary judges because we as Uganda as a country—now where where we are—we cannot appoint the required judicial officers to actually clear the case backlog. Um, just two years, two years ago the budget of the judiciary was around 190 something. We thank, we thank God now that the judiciary’s budget was actually increased by I think 150% to now 400 billion. They are working towards increasing it to the tune of of of 800, 800 billion within the next 3 years. um, it has been stagnant at that for the past 3 years. We are supposed to have reached I think to the tune of that 800 billion, which I don’t see that is going to happen even in the next 5 years. So we are still grappling with that. The second has been um which is actually a point that has been uh contention is is is the the discussion around the viability of of these um of the of of of of what we are talking about—the logistical budget constraints—because we all know that temporary deployments we still require housing, security, and operations support which may strain um the national budget if not properly planned. Sustainability. Um, people think exactly that temporary assignments are not suited for long-term solutions such as building um permanent courts and having full-time judicial officers especially in underserved areas. Um, the biggest concern has been—people think that we will lack legal consistency and continuity because um sometimes exactly some of these—it’s mission or then we will fail to actually have the continuity—someone—but even when we having this judicial—what we have—for example, have decisions from the same court, from the same judge, confusing. And here you will not even go into details to mention some, but we all know some of those judgments that have caused us to know exactly those. But I also believe that even with that—with that is—I think is an open suggestion. Um, um, um, that the court and we believe that even taking really, really Article 142 will provide constitutional tools for addressing judicial gaps in in those areas. If implemented with clear guidelines and reduced support, and we will definitely have to have some, some guidelines, some um some rules to follow, and as long as we do it in a very transparent manner, I don’t see the reason why we should not have it, and and however that can only be uh part of the broader strategy and include more accessible um uh courts and more accessible other generous institutions across the country. Thank you so [Music] much. I request those who have questions to either request for the microphone to speak like how Madame Ho has done. Yeah, we shall add you as speaker soon, or you can share them in chat or inbox. We shall get you to answer your questions. At this point I want to invite to ask any question to which you could be having a question for Mr.

Um, Erin, I think your clientele are people who definitely need um I would say the people that you support, for instance, are people who need to have a good awareness and knowledge in terms of how they can access justice at an affordable uh price, at an affordable cost, but also to understand the kind of justice they can achieve by going to court or maybe—she’s still on—taken enough time and enough effort in ensuring that—in whatever district—is aware of—can be able to file, for instance, a claim with a small claims court when it comes to amounts for certain value or they can make a claim in the in the land. Do you think that enough effort has been put to ensure that there is the awareness and the people know that they have this access to justice? Because no matter how much money is invested in—if the people who need the justice are not to be informed or where or even know where to start from other than going before a mediator, then it would be a futile exercise in my opinion. Thank you very much. Today is not the judiciary of the past 5 years. We have seen a tremendous shift, for example, in terms of um community engagement and um by the judicial officers. We are now increasingly having judicial officers engaging with the community through community bases uh through radio talk shows. I think there are more radio talk shows that the judiciary is conducting now than um um than the last 5 years, which is now really, really plus, but still we still need, need a lot of engagement. It’s it’s not something that they are going to achieve within a short time. Going forward, we, we need, we need reforms where judges and judicial officers—we stop looking at them as as as demigods or semi-gods—that one itself creates, creates an a very intimidating atmosphere, and that one distances them from from the communities they serve. Um, but increasingly we have had actually really some of them have taken uh gradually really taking the the steps of uh community engagement seriously, and I

Think if everybody, really, among the judicial, within the judicial ranks, um, buys the approach, then they shall surely go there. But also, the judicial need the support of the lawyers, the Uganda Law Society, institutions like justice centers. So we actually drum up some of these reforms, some of these um awareness creation, and we empower the community so that the community is able actually to not only uh demand for the enforcement of their rights, accountability from these institutions, because these people are just not doing—they are not doing us a favor. They are using our taxpayers’ money, our money that we, we as taxpayers, contribute. So we should demand accountability on what they actually are doing, what they are not doing right, even what they are doing right. We should not look at them as uh, like the way we, we, we really treat them, but also the whole culture. I, I, I am, I am one of those people who believe that actually maybe the culture of our judges needs to drastically change.

I was in Canada, and, and just a few uh, few years ago, and we were just running around with, with the deputy chief justice on the streets, moving with no escort, with no cars, with no what, and, and the engagement between us and, and, and was very conducive. But look at, look at us, just even approaching a judge itself—uh, you go to high court when a judge is passing, they’re busy pushing you off, even lawyers: “Clear the way! Clear the way! Clear the way!” Come on! That actually um, takes away from, from being even free. If now lawyers within the court system can be told, “Clear the way for the judges coming,” what about the community? The community cannot feel free with, with, with the judicial service that is actually tamed in such a way. So for me, um, uh, yes, we need to appreciate the efforts that have been done, but a lot needs to be done. And just in addition to that question, thank you very much for your response.

I want us to talk maybe briefly about the issue of ADR, uh, keeping in mind that you’re from Justice Centers Uganda. We, we do know that there’s a point where mediation had become a mandatory step prior to proceeding in, in the litigation proceedings, and I know that people tried this alternative, and most were futile unless parties uh, are bound maybe by an arbitration clause in their contracts. That’s when you see a lot of willingness because they’re bound, but most of the mediation processes were just a step, a ticking of a box. Um, what value do you think ADR has added to the litigate—to the reduction on case backlog and also in increasing access to justice, not just to the people who maybe are challenged financially, but also to just commercial disputes and all these other disputes? And do you think that more, more steps need to be taken by the judiciary to make it uh, the better way to go other than outright litigation?

I think that, and lawyers—we lawyers were—mediation, that maybe we fees—um, the fees provided under, and under, and that we are seriously inadequate compared to how you would actually uh, earn if you went full-scale litigation. So my actual advice in regard to that is that I think we need again to revise the fees and, um, and ADR so that the lawyers, who are a very big stakeholder, succeed, are rewarded fairly well. So that they, they feel that is one of the easiest ways of actually uh, helping their clients, but also where they can, and handsomely. Another aspect which I, which for me—which for me—I use Justice Center as a case study. I told you that 80, 80% of the cases that come to us are resolved within our office through mediation, by just inviting the other party and sitting down, and we’re able to resolve the conflict without—so that means that if Justice Centers, for example, was not, was not there, those cases would have increased on the statistics that is actually clogging the system furthermore, and even other legal service providers. So for me, it portrays the importance of having a very effective ADR system that will work, and it will help us to unlock, to unblock some of those bottlenecks that we are facing currently at the system. So, one, the lawyers need to be adequately remunerated, but also the lawyers need—the lawyers and the clients need to be adequately sensitized. Some clients feel that if they don’t have their day in court, then they have—they feel that they’re being cheated. But for me, as someone—as someone who needs—so my—I mean the fruit of my litigation or my dispute, what I want is to have—how it is resolved is, for me, is, is, is none of my issues, as long as it’s resolved, and resolved effectively, then I would really go alongside. So we need to build the capacity and sensitize both the consumers and the suppliers of the justice services to have that ADR system effectively implemented. Um, thank you. Thank you very much.

Um, Aaron, I just wanted to clarify to our listeners that ADR stands for alternative dispute resolution, um, and that is for the resolution that is on matters outside of the courts. I want to move to—to—Aaron has made interesting points. You’ve talked about the culture of judges needs to change, and you’ve said, for example, when you’re walking in the corridor of the high court, uh, some people may clear the way for the judicial officer—that you shouldn’t be walking on the same corridor; should stand aside and bow to their lordship as they pass. You know, there’s a, there’s a, there’s a matter where a judicial officer um, told a lawyer that, “I think what you have said is very stupid,” and of course the lawyer before court had to use court language, and so he replied, “Much obliged, my lord.” Uh, that culture of being obliged as you’re insulted is, is um, I think what, what you are saying needs to change. I know of another matter where a judicial officer told um, the state attorney at the end of a criminal session, “You are banned from appearing before me for the remainder of your natural life,” and the state attorney responded, “My lord, I am much obliged. Even me, I don’t want to appear before you for the remainder of my natural life.” But my question to, to Aaron is, um, is uh, on the same trajectory but maybe slightly differently. Um, you, you had spoken about—you had spoken about um, what you called judicial officers who are oblivious of the law, and you give a fantastic example of a, of a case which you are handling where somebody has added a country to the case completely, and you use the word “oblivious of diplomatic protocols,” and some, some things you can even find them in movies—that you shouldn’t be able to sue another country in the high court of Uganda and uh, add the embassy as a party to, to, to a dispute unless there are certain things which, which are clear. And so my question to you really along those lines is what practical improvement would you propose to improve—um, what could I call the quality of judicial reasoning and decision-making? Because when, when judges make decisions, they’re making—they’re making uh, law—people, people need—people don’t know that decisions of, of our judges bind future courts—higher courts bind lower courts. So once a judge interprets the law, the judge is also doing what we call making judge-made law, and if judges are reasoning against the Vienna Convention, against the constitution, against the law—I mean, and you’ve given us a number of practical examples where people are totally oblivious, and you, you have one solution which you’ve given us of specialized courts—of if you, if you’re not up to it, you’re not up to it, I mean, but what other proposals would you have to, to make to, to practically help ensure that, that the, the, the noble and decent men and women who serve in the judiciary as judges and justices of the courts, as magistrates, that they’re able to deliver quality decisions.

Um, thank you, Ellison, for that uh, question. First of all, it goes right to the time when the judges are put in applications to the judicial service commission to be appointed judges. Who are those people who sit on the JSC? Who are they? What are—and if I can interrupt you, very soon I shall be one of them, but maybe continue. We, we will be happy to find you there. So now it is, it is important that we look at right from the time of appointment. If you’re going to have people who are going to have sound judicial reasoning, we need to look at the caliber of appointees, and also not even only the appointees, but the judicial—the composition of the commission. Have we even ever bothered to find out? But apart from knowing the chairman of the judicial service commission and maybe the two US appointees, do we know the other people? What is their public record? What, who are they? What is their standing in society? What quality do they use in the appointing of persons to be appointed as judges? Because that is key. Yeah. That is key for us to have quality people. We—it starts from right at that point when they present. For example, you are appointing a person who has never been in a courtroom, never argued a case, never written submissions. You know how we write submissions so that the judge can read them and deliver judgments. You’re appointing a person never been in a courtroom, never had—never maybe worked with somebody somewhere, a body and authority, never really argued a case in court, never had a landmark decision. But why do we appoint judges to the courts of record? Because we must go back into the archives of the court and say this person argued this case; this person argued—participated in this case—that at least we keep seeing you in the newspaper in some famous case. We must see your legal reasoning in court—how you argue. That you get somebody from an authority, has no record, has no—you appoint them a judge, what do you expect really? Then, uh, secondly, um, if we can do away as a country with the vice of corruption, because corruption—we cannot turn a blind eye to this institution—there is corruption in this institution; there’s more corruption. We know that, you know, we’re among those people—we have ranking among the corrupt countries. So if, as long as in a country there is a vice of corruption, even in the appointments of people to various—to serve in various institutions, others will be appointed through nepotism—gamboo—who do you know? What? So it also affects the output of well-reasoned decisions or persons who are appointed. Then, in the resultant end, is the decisions that come out. Then also, I think there is need for judicial training. They can have visiting judges from other jurisdictions who can come and train these judges, or they can go as studying judges and sit in other courts in other countries and see how do these people deliver timely judgments. What, how do they scrutinize and analyze evidence? How do they make sure—what do they look at? So it is important to benchmark. Then we have people like—we can also, you know, get the services of our—we have, we have good caliber of judges like Justice—and who was—what was in another country—DCJ or what—chief justice—you know, who have sat—he was chief justice of Seychelles, chief justice of sessions—thank you—uh, so we have guys like that, people like that, high-caliber people who can train our judges. Yeah. So that they can have well-reasoned and sound decisions. Yeah. Then they can have uh, even experts. Why are they shying away from people like us? We are also experts in our field. The Judicial Training Institute can invite us. We have—we have—invite us. There are so many lawyers. I have seen Nicholas Line you there. There are many learned friends I’m seeing here who are experts in various fields who can be called on to train. Why are you shy to call a lawyer? You are not a jack of all trades. I might know what you don’t know. There’s a time I asked the judge, I said, “My lord, have you read this decision because it answers this case before you?” And the judge said, “I haven’t read it.” I said, “My lord, they’re trying to bring a case that is stale.” You know there’s that saying that a decision after 12 years—a court order becomes like stale food. Now a lawyer will go and repackage the court order into a, a, a fresh case, yet it was delivered in 2010. It expired, then he brings it into a fresh case and then files it anyway and streets. So I was just trying to ask the judge, “Have you read this decision so that you can understand your case?” Maybe the judge is now retired. He was humble. He said, “No, I haven’t, but I’ll read it.” He was going to deliver a ruling. He stopped delivering it. He waited to deliver. He said, “Let me not deliver this ruling. Let me go and read the case. Then we shall see.” But unfortunately, he retired. So another judge did not—whatever. He just came and delivered the wrong ruling that was on file. So there is need for adequate training. Yeah. So basically that is it, if you’re going to have sound and quality decisions. Yeah.

Okay. Um, thank you for that. Um, I think I’ve—you, you talk about corruption, and I think in 2021—I, I need to just get the study properly—but I know that in 2021 the Inspectorate of Government did a study on the cost of corruption in uh, in, in Uganda, and I think they said the judiciary has the highest cost of corruption, with the estimated costs paid by clients to bribe—it was something like $200 million or something like that. Um, um, and uh, I need to get the figures properly, but I think 43% of funding—43% of funding in all to the entire JLO sector, I think was the statistic—43% of funding—almost half of the entire judiciary budget, I think that was—was the amount of—amounts spent on, on, on corruption in, in, in the judiciary. So when you talk about corruption, there are some crazy numbers out there. But I think uh, maybe Alfred has something. I think we also are opening up—we have a few minutes left, so we’ll open up for a few questions from, from those who are listening. Yes.

Thank you so much, Mson. And those who have their comments in the chat, I’ll read out some comments as those ones who have questions can request for—not going to speak—but I want to read his comments, and then maybe one question which I received. Mr. [inaudible] of the size council and seems suggest that mission-based judges can target lawyers that have proven competence in certain fields. This simply means that purely specialist lawyers, like in criminal, would find—would likely find themselves resolving land disputes and likewise. Then, regarding on, on being demigods, he says, “This is really being more than radically perpendicular when it comes to judges by bodyguards—not as demigods.” Then, so my question—the question I received this year from [inaudible] is for Counselor, because he made a very good case on mediation. I noted that 80% of the cases are solved through mediation, and if we can have few cases going to court and so then we can also—that will enable us to handle case backlog, and gave an example—Justice Center, where 80% of cases are solved through mediation—and from my hand, I believe the only thing governing mediation of recent is mediation rules. I think I would propose probably having a mediation act to regulate the mediation, and for the advocates to, to embrace mediation better because I do think when they mediate a suit they may not—they lose out on some money—would as well consider amending the rules to, to accommodate for fees of advocates where they—a matter through, or mediation—so that they’re covered—even—not even when a matter—by mediation—are notating entire—But on just on the same comments, I would like you to propose what agent—agent measures can we embark on to, to really emphasize mediation now more, because you, you see—you see its impact, because even before the first—on the case back—not even matters going to court, but even when the matters go to court it helps to resolve some which have gone to court. So from your experience, what can be done to really have mediation embraced by everyone? That’s the question I got from the comment section. Thank you. Is he addressed to me or—Yes. Is addressed to you, Mr. M? I think I, in my presentation. One, as adequately said that you need to amend the rules so that the advocates are adequately—those who—in that you actually encourage, because today I believe instead of having files within, within your office which are all pending—some of them you take 10 years without ever resolving them—if you, if you, if you knew that you are going to adequately—and from them—then you would actually have them cleared within your system and then, and take, take up new matters. But the second is actually for us as, as, as, as the community, for us to—community—so that we stop this culture of litigation. Um, uh, I told you that many people just want to see their day in courts, and simply because they believe that uh, through litigation, that’s when proper justice is, is attained. For me, that’s not the way I see it. So I, I believe that we need to, to empower the community, to sensitize them, and, and, and also to, to, to sell the idea of ADR to it so that they embrace it, and, and, and then—another thing is for us to have so many centers for ADR established like the way you are having courts. You, you look at the court annex mediation—court annex mediation, for example, majority of them are just—are just—they are not there—the mediators are not there, even who can even help you to, to mediate the matters—they are not there—so we need to train, first of all, more mediators, but also equip them and have many other mediation centers across the country uh, opened up, and then encourage people to actually utilize them. So we must take—take a lead, because the roster now is now everywhere—now even the towns that never used to have advocates at—they’re opening up—you find one or two—or more advocates. Um, maybe a part—some hard-to-reach areas like, for example, if you go to Yund—whether you go to the seven districts of Karamoja—you really get a lawyer that is actually has opened up a law district to go and handle matters there. But by and large, we are having now very many lawyers’ chambers across the centers—I mean, across the country—some of those uh, mediation centers—in some matters where they would not be involved maybe as parties or as, as, as counsel that are involved. So for me, it is—one, sensitizing the public so that they embrace the mediation handsomely—the lawyers involved—but also open up uh, mediation centers where we can easily—where citizens can actually easily get the services when, and then—so that we give the choice—people—those who want to go to court, because they would know that if you go to court, you go to court and your matter is going to take five—how many—has to be resolved. If I go for mediation, maybe within a year I will have the fruits of justice that I have achieved. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Aaron, for that. And I realize we’ve spent a lot of time, so we’re going to get to our parting shots, but before we do that, maybe we would need to recognize the presence of the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, Mr. Simu Anthony. We’re so glad that you have joined us today and that you’re listening into these conversations. Um, Aaron, if I could come to you and, and maybe ask you for your parting shots. Um, where do we go from here? Um, when do we vote uh, to get the man in the seats that will get us the mission-best judges? Uh, and, and then we’ll go to Aaron after that. Thank you very much for that as my parting shot. First of all, I’d like to thank Edison for organizing such important and timely conversations. Um, this shows where the world is heading—that we do not even have to be in the same room, rent out a venue for us to have such important, you know, discussions. But most importantly is that moving forward, I think it is important that when we are having these conversations, let us invite members of the judiciary. For example, let us invite the judiciary spokesman. Let us invite uh, maybe a chief registrar of the judiciary so that they can hear and take this information back to the—so that there is a holistic discussion, and we know that there’s going to be solutions, because everything that has been said here is extremely important, and it is things that we have seen and things that we experience that affect your land at this. So it is important…

That this is important, key stakeholders in government, because if we need mission-based judges, then we must be able to invite even the chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, currently, to sit in these, you know, spaces. At least let him decline the invitation, but let us invite him. Let us have, uh, you know, members of parliament, someone from the Speaker’s office, people who will push for change of policy to be able to sit in these spaces, because everything that has been discussed here is key and very important, and we would not want it to end here. But we’d like to see that action has been taken. But also, we can we can form groups and committees of people with Ellis leading that can find a way of engaging or maybe even put out whatever has been discussed, reduce it in writing or a paper of some sort so that it can be used to engage with the policy makers.

Yeah. For the betterment of the people of Uganda and all of us in general. Thank you.

Um, Aaron, you’re parting short.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you very much. I saw join Karuni to to to thank Edison for continuously engaging us in having this topical discussion, and I believe that will make um a judiciary that is responsive, or the justice system that is responsive to the the needs of the community they serve.

In my passing, I want now to implore Elson that we need to reform the way the judges are actually appointed. And for me, I will vote for you on that basis. If you promise reform, we need a transparency. Judges are appointed. We need a system that is going to promote accountability. We need a system that is going to promote fairness, and we need systems that actually are are going to be people-centered, not actually serving of the state and leaving the majority actually feeling that they are delivery of certain what of of certain services from government.

Lastly, is again I I want to I always say this that you we cannot talk about to justice when the majority of the consumers are left aside, and these are the the vulnerable, the marginalized poor that who are the majority. Reform party studies have have shown that of cannot afford services of private advocate. So tomorrow they may be them, tomorrow could be you who need services but you can’t afford. So we must put a system that will actually that will cater for both of us regardless of their economic and and political status within within this country.

With that, I want to thank you and want to thank the listeners for this engagement we going on, and let us push and make sure that actually that we get our service commission. I said that we have we have stepped back and we are not pushing enough. Thank God that Anthony, the vice president, is actually is listening. We need now an action point. What are we going to do? We need our representation failed, and we cannot just sit idle and wait until the judicial determines on what to do with us.

You thank you so much, Mr., and for your parting shots. It’s been nice having you for almost 2 hours, two and a half hours. At this point in time, I like to invite Caner to give his parting shots, but there’s a question. Sorry to give you parting shots, but while giving them there’s a question which came which I don’t want to leave behind. One young requested you, this was Mr. team, to comment on the enrollment of young lawyers to the role that they are also being denied justice because of being late to be enrolled as advocates, and maybe they could be also enabling access to justice if they were advocates, but 3 years later they can’t even participate in such things because of the environment, so you could comment on that as give us your parting shot. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Alfred. Um, on the issue of delayed enrollment, I think it um, it’s fair to call it a scandal. I mean, how it takes a Ugandan one day, it can take a Ugandan one day or one week, one month to get an ID or a passport. Um, it can take you 2 days or a day to get a driving license. A person who is qualified to appear on the role of advocates should not take 6 to 9 months, one year or two years to get onto the role of advocates in in a digital world. If if someone qualifies, every step should be made to ensure that this person who has qualified is practicing his trade and profession. Delaying people is unconstitutional. I believe it’s article 42 of our constitution that gives a fundamental human right to a citizen of this country to practice his trade and profession. If somebody has met all the legal requirements under the Advocates Act and under the various laws of this country for enrollment as a advocate of the courts of judicature, there should be no reason why he should wait 9 months, 12 months, 6 months, 18 months for his or her name to be entered on the role of advocates. For every day that a qualified lawyer cannot enter the role of advocates, it is an economic punishment to that person. It is unconstitutional. It is unnecessary. It is unjustifiable. And I think those who are in charge will certainly help us to help move this process forward and to understand it better.

Now, my parting shots, I first of all, I am honored. I am privileged. I am proud and happy that my colleagues and friends Aaron and an have come on and have been firing on all cylinders. They have been saying the things that need to be said, and there are so many takeaways from this conversation. There are very practical things that have been proposed. We have had proposals about holistic discussions, inviting the judiciary into these spaces, um preparing written papers, um bringing the Speaker’s office here, uh proposing reforms to the way judicial officers are appointed. In fact, that one has come even with a condition attached, a very important condition attached that it is a vote. It comes with a vote ensuring that we have a transparent method of judicial um that we introduce judicial accountability in the way in which we are ensuring appointment of judicial officers. I welcome these ideas. I think we do need to have transparency. I do think we need to widen these conversations, and I do think we need to broaden this debate. There’s also the fact that we must not sit by and ensure that the Uganda Law Society is able to elect its representatives and that we must put our feet on the pedal more and that we must bang the drums of Regal Lauder and make sure that that election happens. I think we’ve taken away fantastic good things.

Um, there’s a point which which had been made. Someone has now sent me the statistics that actually statistically according to I think a 2021 report from the Inspectorate of Government, every litigant in the court system pays on average in corruption 300,000 shillings per case litigant, that somewhere along the way somebody will part with 300,000 shillings, and I think it’s a 2021 report of the Inspectorate of Government, and of course um if you’re looking at uh I think someone also sent me a quote that um you that does not take into account judicial avoidance, that does not take into account manipulation of the decision-making process in the courts, that does not take into account rubber-stamping decisions of powers that be, um that does not take into account absentism, laziness, lateness, rashness, sophistry, narrow-mindedness, misuse of judicial power. Um, sweeping the concerns of the weak under the rug, judicial decisions, the purpose of which is to avoid embarrassing, powerful, corrupt institutions. That if you take all of that into account, then the 300,000 figure may be much higher. But that doesn’t mean of course that we don’t have great judicial officers. Um, those rare custodians of conscience. Um, those people who don’t avoid the hard questions. Those judges who face controversy squarely and resolve it justly. Um, those judges who are the last fortress of the powerless. Uh, who are not absent but present. And um who do not fear embarrassment for themselves or the truth. If it is necessary for justice, and that therefore you have judicial integrity, you also have judicial corruption. But whatever the case may be, I think what is important is that we have these conversations and make sure that we’re able to move the conversation forward.

For from my side, it’s been a great honor having you here, and we are certainly going to take all these ideas into account to ensure our conversations are holistic, uh are wider, are deeper. They go to the root of the problem. They touch the I don’t want to use a famous um I don’t want to use a famous um metaphor, but there’s a famous metaphor from a very powerful person about touching dangerous things, but we are going to try and ensure that dangerous things are touched to make sure that we progress this process and that we progress it with the necessary and deliberate haste. But for the lawyers, when we do get to fight and we are going to fight and soon it won’t take us a long time. I know I’ve been saying soon for some time, but we’ll continue to say soon and it will happen, but we are we are we are going to very soon be updating colleagues on the steps we are taking to ensure Aaron’s last point is met, that the Uganda Law Society sends its representatives. It is a scandal that up to this day the Uganda Law Society has not been able to send representatives to the Judicial Service Commission. Just remember that the bar is the those are the people who are allowed to stand before the courts of judicature. The 57,000 people who are allowed to represent 45 million Ugandans are not sitting in the room at the judicial service commission. That is an unacceptable scandal. It is a judicial emergency that the judiciary certainly must take time off to look at and ensure that this matter is resolved with the necessary speed that is required. The fact that the lawyers do not have a voice in the room, that the clients do not have a voice in the room, that the Judicial Service Commission can be progressing without the voices of court users, that it can be happening in total avoidance and and and um obliviousness to article 146 of the constitution. That it can be happening without the without the the mind of the framers. That it can be happening on account of judicial decisions that are anyway I will not describe them is to me totally and absolutely unacceptable, and we will certainly try and continue to take steps because as far as we are concerned, at least us in this campaign, as far as we are concerned, nobody should no and nobody can stop reggae, and when that time for voting comes, colleagues in the Uganda Law Society, just remember the question of Africa, the unavoidable question, the question that um we have to ask ourselves with all seriousness. When that time comes and you’re faced alone with your pen in a ballot in a basin, the questioners will have to ask themselves is this. [Music]