Transcription
Raymon Mujuni. We are privileged to be hosting the PJ Emeritus, and I think his maiden Twitter exercise, his maiden introduction to the Twitterverse of the exorld, but also one of his first public comments since his retirement as principal judge of the Republic of Uganda in 2019.
For those of you who don't know, I think a large number of lawyers have joined the bar since I think the bar has almost doubled in size, and many of them have only interacted with your lordship, um, through Julie and through case decisions quoting PPD and KA channel and other decisions of yours. My lord, we are a group of people who meet. This is our 10th meeting every Wednesday to discuss the future of our judiciary and our main focus on how to make justice a service; how to ensure that the people of this country receive adequate and fair justice.
Um, for those who don't know, my lord, Justice Bamun has served this country, I think, since 1983. He served as a judicial officer in the judiciary since '83 until his retirement in 2019. He was a magistrate. He was a chief magistrate at He was a chief magistrate. He was a chief magistrate at Buganda Magistrate's Court. He was [Music] um, a judge. He served in Fort Portal, in I think Rukuiri, in Gulu, in Fort Portal. He served at the commercial division of the high court, at the civil division of the high court. I think at one time even of the judicial training institute and also as principal judge. He was, for many of us who appeared before him, I do not recall ever succeeding in getting an adjournment from Justice Bamun. He was a stickler for time, followed the law, got up every day, and I think as one of the records in at that time we used to only—as we do in many courts—the record was got by long hand, and I remember at one time my lord had written so much that his hand ended up having a problem. I think he spends the morning to night writing. So my lord understands the judicial burnout, the judicial backlog. I think he spent a lot of time as PJ fighting judicial backlog.
So the format of what we're going to do today is we'll all—I think we'll have all the hosts just greeting everyone. Alfred will then read; Marci will then read an excerpt from Justice Bamun's book; and then, my lord, we shall ask you to, if you can just make a short presentation to the people who are listening. We've been joined by a large number of people, many members of the bar, many members of the law society. Um, and uh, all of them are here to really learn and listen. And so we'll start maybe with Raymond, then Alfred, and then Merci.
Father in many regards, but yeah, I'm very keen about this conversation today and I look forward to it. Yeah, thank you so much, our lawyers lawyer and service commissioner Kanga. And I'm very glad to join this face today as we host the principal judge as he weighs on; he weighs in on the principal mission-based justice. And to everyone who has joined this; joined us for the past nine conversation conversations and even on this 10th episode, we are very grateful and we look forward to having a wonderful audience from you. Thank you.
Um, thank you very much to everyone who has joined us today. But most importantly, I'd like to thank Justice Bamun for honoring our invite and coming to join us on this space today. The last time I met him, I was in university and he came to honor us at the UCU Law Society event at UCU. That just goes to show that he's been working with young lawyers for a really long time, and I really appreciate you making time to be here today.
Um, for all those that are on the space, thank you very much for making time to be here with us today, and I hope you will benefit as I know you will by being on this space today. I'd like to get right into it. Um, we have a book that was authored by Justice Bamun, which is um, Sparred to Prominence by God's grace. And we're going to start our space today by reading an excerpt from this particular book. And this is on page 86 and 87. Um, just allow me to read it for a very short period of time, and I hope you can um, listen to the message within the excerpt. It says, "In worst situations, countries worldwide call upon reserve forces to b to bolster their active forces. Uganda has many senior lawyer lawyers who are mostly in private practice while countless others are in retirement. The monster of backlogs can be fought the same way. The medical sector mobilizes doctors to stop the spread of epidemics whenever they break out, or the manner in which the army leadership calls upon its reserve force in war situations to unhilate the enemy. After all, experienced lawyers; after all experienced lawyers are a potential pool of judicial officers at all court levels. Given chance, season lawyers would be mobilized in adequate numbers to offer relief even in the remotest of villages. This move would reduce congestion in prisons and court registries at all court levels. The good doctor's advice reminded me of the Gakaka courts in Randa, a traditional randon system of justice in which local community members were allowed after the 1994 genocide to testify freely without participation of lawyers and cases decided by a panel of judges chosen from the community. Many lawyers would be happy to serve in that capacity for a limited time only. This is something the visionaries of Uganda in the executive legislature and judiciary can champion as a form of initiative, preferably through research and legislation if only they can see congestions in prisons or civil cases taking too long in the judicial system through a human rights lens." Thank you, Merci. If only they can see the congestion through the lens of human rights. And my lord, it has been our contention here that in fact article 1422 does give us a starting point for the proposal you made in that book. But now over to you. Welcome. Thank you for honoring us. And over to you, the honorable Dr. Justice Bamun.
Thank you for inviting me to be part of this great conversation. Personally, retirement, and I'm taking this—being the first time getting exposed to the Justice to the subject, the concept, not your idea of mission mission-best judges—from what which has just been every; I'm happy that colleagues here and on the line have read my book. Simple view is that of an experienced [Music] person with limited powers compared to; He or she is not a full-time judge but is legally mandated to exercise power within our context. Today we are talking about a judge specifically appointed to reduce back. Be told we are yet to see any such appointment in this country. have come within this text. I think most people know what is, but um, I will just say in our court system—unless it has changed recently—it's for cases which have been in the system for more than two years without a final judgment. Generally speaking, the judiciary I served for 36 years has implemented various initiatives to reduce. They include the recent strict rules against unnecessary where a lawyer appearing on behalf of another is also small claims procedure. You have mediation. All these reforms were initiated in the context of tackling case backlog. Now who is responsible for this monster—and in my book I call it a monster, and I insist it is—The first one is poor quality investigations, especially in criminal cases. The other one is inadequate resources. Over the years, on one cow but expect thousands of liters of milk a month. It's impossible. Another one is bureaucratic judicial processes. And here I'm talking about numerous steps before justice is realized in a matter. Take the example of criminal trials. Have trials within trials. It lengthens proceedings of need for this point in time. One wonders whether we need these people who may in the end not even appreciate the facts in the matter, but they still have to sit with you. One reason which you can talk about is outright laziness of some officers. Certainly not all. Some officers are hardworking, but we have other schools spend a whole day doing other things instead of hearing cases. There's also resistance to innovative practices. Something is crafted to speed up an outdated practice is being campaigned or shut down by the constitutional court by people who make a living that way. You have some lawyers who whose task is to look for the loopholes in the reforms which thinking about I've come in peace against principal challenges in protection of our constitution. So it shouldn't be misunderstood, but some of these challenges sometimes contribute to backlog cases. The other one is inadequate numbers of judicial officers. Too much work for the pure officers. I highlighted some of these factors in my book. Such factors is the appointment of temporary judges; temporary as opposed to permanent and permanent. Article 142 of the constitution is a key on this. The lawmaker clearly had in mind two categories of judges in this country: one, substantive judges on permanent and terms. I was one of them. The other one, acting judges justices also who, as it is in the army, will be used when need arises. They would of course need facilitation. Every judge needs facilitation, but not as much as that needed for other for the other category of advocates. Who did my view fall in this category of experience category advocate? What would we need? You need experienced lawyers and retired judges appointed to serve as the bishop officer for a specific mission, and I'm happy. I'm with the people who are championing mission-based judges. Though experienced lawyers and retired judges appointed to serve as police officers for a specific mission and that mission is elimination of backlog, well-defined terms. With regard to the numerous applications for judicial review, get a judge to hand the many judicial review applications. Get another to hand of family matters and land matters. Don't forget commercial district schools. It can also be eliminated lawyers. And where do you find the timelines? Well, say two years. So make it clear, renewable or nonrenewable, and make it clear to them that their tongues are different from those who are permanent. Problem I've seen over time is a person is appointed as an act; wants all the benefits of a serving judge. So make it clear to these people that their terms are different from those of their colleagues. The concept of mission-based charges would work best in my view where the court bee or supreme court has a full staff compliment under the [Music] law because a politician test judges. There are vacancies for substantive judges. Does it make sense for those still looking for employment on permanent and patients? Everyone should join the judiciary on [Music] permanent. At the moment the position is that those vacancies do not exist, but we have telephone temporary charges for [Music] them. So if senior ad hoc retired detectives experts in academia opportunity to take up limited educational assignments so that thereafter they go back to their comfort zones, that they too have played a role in the administration of justice, that my view is that it can be done. I can hear where in the where is the justification for acting judges in our; for me I've already cited article 142; see was in the judiciary in 1995, the year of the constitution; backlog was not as bad as it is [Music] But even then the constituent assembly did provide in its reason that there may be a time when the chief justice may advise the bishops and his commission the state of business in any of the courts warrants appointment on acting basis; they are the right. I can assure you that during my time as a principal judge, I I I came across many such resolution will perhaps be to appoint some judges on temporary bases to some cases to their private practice. All we would need in that case is an appointment by the president. The person qualified for appointment as a justice of the Supreme [Music] Court, justice of the court of appeal, but the judge of the high court depending on one's experience to act on such justice or judge. The beauty of it that even retired judges have that opportunity and we many of them who are still able and willing to serve. But the service commission has not been very keen. Take the money. So the same questions about your experience questions; How are you joining the bench? What encouraged you? And some of the challenges that you saw in particular question this morning on judicial burnout. Like are judges overworked and are they burning out? But for those who are joining us, we have been joined of course by none other than the honorable Dr. Justice Yurakam Bamun, Principal Judge Emeritus of the Republic of Uganda. Over to you, my lord. Thank you. But in that area, I would say the answer is in the the book To Prominence by God's grace, how I joined the bench, but um, briefly for the Ugandan audience, I did my school high school in—it's now called Monta High—then went to Namilyango High School in Bali, which between 70 in the 70s, let me say, was known out great lawyers this country, so that's why I did my my A level, got interested in law, applied and did my course at Makerere University in '77 and 1980. I don't know whether I need to say more on that. But what inspired me—and it's in the book—was a case near our home uh village which had been in the court system for a very long time, telling why court cases don't come to an end; then I somehow as a young man, I used to see lawyers, hoops and ties and beautiful attire coming to argue the case, a locus. That's when I first got interested in this course, and I'm happy that in 1983 I applied and I was taken on the magistrate to create one. I've served since; served as the chief magistrate. I was at Buganda Road in 1993 to 95; 95 as the constitution was uh being worked on, actually on the very day it was promulgated. I was appointed chief registrar chief registrar of the courts of judicature and then later a judge of the high court. I saw in one of the judgments in the Kabumba case someone saying since from 1995 we not had acting judges. That's not true because I was appointed in 1998 as an acting judge and I was later confirmed in service, but it was the practice was dropped later, but I understand it has now been resumed. Are judges overworked? Yes. We served at a time when we did not have recording equipment. These days I see people sitting in their comfortable chairs and listening to their parties without writing anything. In our time we had to write whatever was being said, and as a result I personally developed a problem in the right hand and I had to undergo some surgical operation in South Africa to correct that problem, thanks to writing too much on the page. Uh, judges overworked. Yes, you have to record judgment uh uh proceedings in in in court during the day and at night you have to write judgment, and that's from Monday to Monday, January to December, whether it's called vacation or otherwise. So judges in this country are overworked, and I pity them. If you want to to get more, it was for that reason that when I clocked 65, I thought enough was enough and I chickenened out; was on account of too much work I was handling; had handled as a judge. Among some officers is the cause of case backlog. And still someone from the audience noted that this is a lot of listen; issuing of delivering judgment that you can the case you close pleadings and the judge tells you, "File your submission within two weeks; each party two weeks, and judgment will be on notes," and then two years later, three years later, there's no judgment which has been delivered, and you are that delicate balance of either following up or leaving it until it's delivered. You have a judicial career spanning almost four decades. So I would love to take have your take on judgments or not used to handle them, not because there was also case backlog in court. Thank you. My lord mentioned; I'm sure he's the same person who asked about judicial burnout. I thought the president of Uganda society. Yes. The same; the same person. My lord, are some judges lazy? Yes, I've said so. I remember in our time we used to have a judge who would come come in around 11 in the morning, ask for a cup of tea, ask for a newspaper, and and by 1:00 perhaps—let me say—he or she would be going to court. Sincerely, that judge had issues with deliver of judgments, and it's not one; it's not two; we have—I was in service; we had several such judges, but I would talk to them. I would talk to them because personally I never had challenges with judgment writing; don't know whether it was because I I I had been selected to deliver lectures on judgment writing, but um, I even hated telling lawyers that judgment would be delivered on movies. I would give a definite date and deliver judgment any; I don't remember ever promising parties that I I was going to deliver judgment and I didn't. I hear people take a year or two on the judgments; I wouldn't know what the pro the problem is; let me not pass judgment on such people that they are lazy; no, they may be having other reasons; yes, there is a judge; had a chat with uh the judgments are not forthcoming. Uh, but the judge says he wants to be thorough; doesn't want to deliver judgment which people will look at and say, "Who delivered this one?" So some judges delay on account of being thorough. But my take even on that one is: By the time you appointed a judge, you should know your facts. You should have your your law in the head. So that where you cannot deliver a ruling in court, and I used to do that very often. We you argue the matter and um, I deliver ruling there and there; that practice has now died out. We don't know what the problem is, but um, for the serving judges I may not have much advice for it, but I'm told I've been selected to train magistrates, senior magistrates in judgment, and I will be starting next month of country and even will be coming to the city, so I will have opportunity to pass on some of my tactics to those people.
I think listening to your earlier presentation, one question came to mind. Um, you mentioned the bureaucracies that exist within our justice system, especially for the criminal. And uh, I'd like to seek your opinion as to on whether we have adequately addressed this issue in our legislation because we do have room to um, definitely amend these laws. Have we done enough to adequately address this issue? Why? Because these are foreign systems that are adopted in our country. We have a unique judicial system in Uganda. We have unique problems that require unique solutions. And yet we're still relying on laws that are, you know, dated so back. So I would like to uh to to pick your mind on that issue. Do you think we've adequately addressed the challenge of adopting a foreign system in our Ugandan system? And what more can we do?
I like that one, especially when you talk about law. In the book Art to Prominence by God's grace, I talk about some my experience at Nabumari where a teacher, an English teacher, came to the class and said he did not know what was wrong with Ugandans. They were complaining to him that they that they were finding poetry difficult. He was saying, "I don't know what's wrong with Ugandans." And I innocently put my hand up and told the judge, a white judge, that it was because it was an imported subject. And he didn't like it. He lost his school; invited me to to to apologize to the class. The the African in me told me not to. You ordered me out of his class. I did. But the following day I went back to class, and he never raised any any query because he realized he had touched a wrong nerve of an African. So yes, law is not understood by quite a number of people, even lawyers themselves. It's because the common law of England is what we are told to administer in Uganda. Some of these practices have changed in England where we got the law from, but for us we still have them. The the example I've given of assessors, it is the whites the white judges who introduced that one because they were not familiar with our customs. They were not familiar with, but we have retained the same. We have talked time and again that it's time to get rid of some of these practices, but there there appears to be no one person who is taking up the challenge. So we need we need uh some studies, some people to to to go outside and and benchmark the way we did with gaining. We didn't have it in our laws, but we introduced it. It takes time to change what was introduced so many years ago, and what makes a lawyer in this country a lawyer because those are things he passed he did papers in or exams in and passed, and that's it. That's why we have problems with mediation because
These are new concepts, and you want to run away from the adversarial system which we are used to. That one came from England, the adversarial system. So yes, I think for the time being I’m happy to say that I’m a lawyer, and that some of these processes can be done away with. It will be for the young generation now to do some studies and get rid of them. That’s my view for now. Thank you so much.
My lord, I have a question for you, and mine is to draw on your experience as a judge. You mentioned three areas: poor quality investigation, outright laziness of some judicial officers. But I wanted to focus on sources of the judicial bench in your time, Judge, um, and particularly in your role of assigning matters to different judges. How many matters would you say are averagely good for a judge to be handled at any given time? And at what point would you say this is perhaps too much and it makes the judicial officer either burn out or that you need an extra judicial officer to handle some of the matters that are coming?
That one is a difficult one. Because let—let me handle the inadequacy of the resources first. We’ve been having issues of this inadequacy for a very long time. The state, or call it government, paid very little attention to the judiciary. It was, after all, a third arm of government and the weakest arm because it depended on the other arms to give it resources. I served as a chief registrar for three years, and I was the accounting officer for the judiciary at one stage. I can assure you the money we had was so little that in most cases we had to make choices: either for people to travel abroad and we forgo a session somewhere, or to have a session and people fail to go abroad for further studies or otherwise. The money has been a problem over the years that by the time I left—I left service in 2019—things had changed for the better. For the first time in—in years, we were told our budget had been significantly increased. I don’t know how they are doing right now. But there is a time we—judiciary has been failing to hold sessions. Not because we don’t have judges, but because we don’t have resources.
Been doing 40 cases, criminal cases in a session. I used to find it easy because you can’t write judgments in all the—the 40 cases. You get people pleading guilty and so on. So you—40 cases for 22 days in a month, really. Um, that was overworking the judges. Even at that time, I was overworking myself as a trial judge, writing judgments at night and doing hearing cases during the day. But that is the life of a judge. Once you are appointed, you should be ready to serve. In a year, a judge should be able to do 300 cases, criminal, civil, 300. If you do more than 300, perhaps you—not exceed 500. But that was then. I have a feeling that now a judge can do more cases than we did at our time because of the technology which they are enjoying at the moment. But 300 cases a year wouldn’t be a bad piece of cake for a judicial officer. 300 cases, 300 cases a year. I’m sure lawyers are listening in absolute shock. First of all, it’s a lot, but we know judges who have right now dockets of a thousand cases, and I don’t know if 100 have been done in a year. Um, and—um, but one of our colleagues has said that—um, much of the interventions done by the judiciary—seen—have come—we’ve seen reform happen—the new ideas—their sentencing guidelines—propagating mediation—small claims court—increment of judicial officers—increment of courts—increments of stations—and people feel that backlog has only gone down 1%. Um, I think that’s a statistic we were given in one of the conversations. We had a South African here tell us that in South Africa a criminal case becomes backlog if it has been in the system from plea—if you—if you take plea and you don’t have judgment within 9 months—that would be considered backlog. Here in Uganda, we told him that if you take plea and you have judgment in 9 months, that may be considered corruption. [Music]
Um, in—in your view, do you believe that the reforms introduced by the courts have actually had—actually been able to—to handle this challenge? And then with—with at the time—when you talk of 300 cases at your time, you were writing in longhand. Right now with technology, how come we aren’t seeing the same level of output um from—from—from—from the judiciary?
The new ideas I mentioned earlier on have been, so to say, a game changer. Beginning for instance, which I championed when I was in service, has had an impact, especially as regards de-congesting prisons and giving people opportunity to go back home after serving those sentences. People who used to spend years and years on remand waiting for a judge to come and listen to them now have an opportunity to brie and get out of the system sooner than later. At one stage, I remember, by the time I left—um, we—we used to have many uh people on remand and those who are serving sentences; the ratios were not—were not balancing the equation. But by around 20—between 2011 and 2019 when I was principal judge, I remember the—those serving sentences were more than those who are on—and much of it was to do with—gaining—and the effort we had put in. Mediation has also had its role, but it’s not as successful as uh we had thought it would be. It’s that combination of reforms which I thought [Music] would bring down the backlog, and um, right now I wouldn’t know why backlog is still a problem, especially after—bringing the judges on board as principal judge. Uh, our compliment was 50—50—51, including principal judge, but there was no time I ever had a full compliment of judges of the high court. You are around 37, 38, 35. That explains the buildup of cases. Too much work for few judicial officers. But now we have more than 50 high court judges. So really the—the people should look for other reasons. Yes, we have to look. Maybe the cases are more complex than they were during our time, which is possible. Okay. But I—I—I would have imagined that with the reforms we have introduced and the resources which government has generously—at least—given to the judiciary, I would have imagined that the situation would be better—better than the way you are portraying it. But still I can assure you, for a case in this country to—to be completed within a year of its filing, it is still not possible because of the many challenges I’ve mentioned here, including the bureaucratic processes—the many steps in civil cases—to—to—a case is heard and determined—and—But as far as Kala is concerned, I know why we—we—we are still experiencing these challenges. It’s because the reforms have not been explained to the lawyers—most lawyers. The reforms which—on—between 2015 and 2019 when I retired—the ones to do with adjournments, the ones to do with civil reforms, the—the—the mediation and the—they’ve not been explained to the lawyers in—in the city through training. So we are looking forward to a time when we shall meet the lawyers. Some of the lawyers are the ones responsible for these delays—the lawyers in private practice—because they are still sticking. They are still relying on old practices, old ways of doing things. So this is a matter—I—I would think it’s something to do with the training, but I can’t tell whether—where we have been—we have been to northern—we have been to eastern—I don’t know whether the situation is any better, but um—you—I think you need a—a lot more training—these uh reforms.
One of the challenges is with reforms—check bargaining. I think lawyers generally believe that many innocent people are forced into accepting guilt because—because of backlog—that plea bargaining coupled with backlog means that the—the remand system has become some form of ransom—that people have no choice but to accept if they’ve been waiting seven years—five to seven years for a trial. If the plea bargain can give them 8 years including the seven years they were in on remand, it’s a deal they’ll take because that—they’re not sure of the trial, and that therefore plea bargaining looks successful on paper, but it is only successful because it’s perpetuating injustice. The other—of course, there—there are many things I think lawyers agree—even when you talk of—some of the—the lawyers who keep suing to stop reform—the law society itself is currently a victim of—of that type of—of—of activity. People are blocking us from voting for the judicial services commission because of their own—um—so lawyers will understand that—but some of the reforms, while they look good on paper, they—they—they seek—they don’t look good when implemented in practice—even when they look successful—some of their successes may be hiding challenges—and the other big reform which really has never been attempted is Article 1422—and lawyers also believe that part of the challenge is many times the reforms don’t include a conversation with the bar—and that Article 1422 hasn’t been implemented because many people want to keep—lawyers want to—want to look at lawyers as the problem in—in—in the delivery of justice—is something that lawyers don’t necessarily agree with. I don’t know what your take is on those two points as regards people pleading guilty for the sake of getting out of jail.
I have my reservations because the process is thoroughly explained to these people. Of course, when I say is thoroughly explained, I don’t know what is done these days. I’m 5 years out of the system. But we used to explain these trial rights to suspects, including warning them not to plead guilty for the sake of getting out of jail. Every offender in a capital offense—at least for these offenses—trial by high court is entitled to services of council. There’s a lawyer involved. So depending on what the—the—the suspect has communicated to the lawyer, if some lawyers are allowing their clients to plead guilty for the sake of getting out of jail, then they are—they—they are not better than the people they are defending. Because we made it very clear that plea bargaining is for those who are willing to plead guilty because they know they committed the offense. If they don’t know, their lawyers are there to advise them as to whether they should plead guilty or not. So I don’t know. Yes, it is. I—I know how attractive it is for you to know that if you plead guilty, you may get a sentence of two or 3 years and get out of jail. And—but if the lawyers who are assigned to these people are also advising them to plead guilty when they know or when they’ve been told they—they never committed the offenses, then there is something we need to work on. And I—I can’t tell what that is because if someone says I committed the offense when in their heart of hearts they—they know they didn’t, I—I—I don’t know how we can believe them when they raise those issues. But yes, I’ve had that challenge. I’ve had that concern. The plea bargaining is for people who are really ready to plead guilty and serve their sentences.
Article 142. Uh, yes, you are right. It’s not implemented. We—we are yet to see this article being implemented. They—I have a feeling it—it is being implemented, but we don’t have access to information. Judicial service commission is not easy to—to—to—to release information. So we don’t know whether the 16 judges, for instance, were supposed to be appointed under that article, but what we know is that they—they were subjected to parliamentary approval. So the same process as that one under article—under sub-article one—and they are not any different from the judges on permanent and pension terms. So I’m not surprised that that challenge came up. We are looking forward to a time when the chief justice will advise—will request judicial service commission to identify senior lawyers because there has been also a bit of misunderstanding regarding this article—two—sub-article 2. They think since they are saying it appears to be referring to—lawyer—to retired judges, therefore lawyers in private practice are not included. My view is that senior lawyers, those with experience, stand to be gain—stand to be appointed acting judges if the president is adequately advised. That’s my view. So I’m looking forward to a time when the judicial service commission would say we have identified five judges who will be going to handle specific cases, and we see whether someone will come up with a challenge—the one similar to what we have seen here. I think this—the—that law—this matter has not come out very well, and I wish you well when you go there as a member. Thank you.
I have questions. The first is along the lines of resistance. I think you highlighted that the idea of implementing mission-based judges and their appointment—if [Music] they’re—make sure that—that’s—that the mission-based judges are welcome when they’re appointed in the future. And the other question is, in the appointment of the mission-based judges, you had highlighted the importance of terms of reference—um—having specifics. Do you think that these different—the terms of reference—the time frames—will assist in ensuring the ethical standards—in terms of integrity, accountability, fairness—will be—um—implemented as they are doing their particular roles that they are appointed to do? In your opinion, do you think those two things are well addressed?
Yes, thank you. Um, I don’t foresee any resistance um to these uh mission-based judges once they’re appointed. If anything, they will be welcomed by their colleagues because the—the—the terms will be different, and they are coming to relieve them. I can’t—I certainly—there’s no way some people will say these ones have come to spy on us, or—no—I can assure you that serving judges have been waiting and are still waiting for appointment of these mission-based judges. It would be a—a big relief to the judges in the first category. Ethical standards—if the appointment is for two years, for instance, or three—and you have here the—the—the likes of Mr.—here you have other senior lawyers in—in—in Kala being appointed judges. I think I may be wrong, but uh—I—I expect them to—one—behave themselves. Two—what we are seeing now with uh acting judges would not apply to them because they are not being assessed by anybody. They will not be assessed by anybody, unlike the acting judges being appointed these days who are being watched by a number of people—by the chief justice—by the principal judge—by people in authority here and there. These ones would be a special breed. This is going to be—these ones will certainly come—serve—some of them don’t—the moment you’re a senior lawyer, you—you’ve—you’ve made your—you—you’ve made your name in the legal profession—you—you can’t spoil it—you can’t stand to spoil it—afford to spoil it within two years of service, so you want to remain uh—uh—that ethical in my view, and it will motivate all of us in—in private practice to look forward to serving uh—huh—this country in that capacity because after that you go back and—and enjoy life—as I put in my earlier remarks—you go back to your comfort zone. If you have a legal firm, a law firm, you just go—go back and uh make more money. But I don’t expect this person to now start looking for money uh from the litigants within the two years of services. After all, and I make this point in the book, a person who has served like this for 2 years, um—is—there is potential for this person to be called upon to come and serve on permanent and pensionable terms if he or she is still willing to serve. And you wouldn’t like to spoil your chance because of the two years. In the two years you—you—you’ll be doing this work.
Being—or—is watched—whatever they are doing—the independence of judges—of the judiciary. I would like to have your take on how we can manage the independence of the judicial officers. Like in your book you—that when the—when you had the high court cases coming up—the people would come—that this one is being watched over—by the state house—is interested in it—but you still made your decision is after thorough review of evidence and the law—in anticipation of a complaint or appeal—and in the end you would have a good result—and so you deny any complaints—and this one still strengthened your belief in the judicial author and judicial independence—and then he’s still an acting judge at one point as you pointed out—and still—I—affect your independence as you—and—but now recently where you’re seeing an acting judge—and probably is more like on probation—is being watched—wants to appease the appointing person—so that is made independent v the independence of that judicial officer. So how would we man—how—how can we manage the independence of acting judges so that the decisions don’t look—that—as if they are politically influenced by any person?
I think you made it. That—that one—that one depends [Music] on a number of things, including the people who are supervising these judges, the chief justice, the principal judge, and uh—they have to be there for them. They have to mentor them. It’s not easy serving as an acting judge because certainly people will be watching you. They are assessing you, so to say. But for me, I see nothing wrong with that. I’m accountable to the people as a judge. So there should be no room for wrong things. If I conduct myself in a judicial manner, I handle my cases on time. I arrive on time. I finish on time. I—I—I write my judgments in time. I should not fear that some people are watching me, and that’s—exact—I make that point in the book—you are right—when I came to Buganda Road as a chief magistrate, it was at a time when the—the new government had just come on board, and uh—um—you would be starting on a case and they tell you state house is interested in it. Not that they would be telling you what to do, but they would be warning you that in case you release someone on bail, chances are some people will take you on. But for me, my attitude was—if I’m—I’ve taken oath to do justice to all manner of people, and there is a matter before me now—how will that information—that I’m being watched by state house—influence my decision? I have to grant bail to this person if he or she deserves it. And it helped me because my view is that for you to serve as a judge in this country, whatever—whatever class—grade, you need to develop a thick skin—thick. So yes, people would come to me, they would tell me, but I would still go to court and grant bail. I don’t remember any day in my service as a chief magistrate when any—anyone ever came from the state to complain that I had granted bail. I don’t remember. So acting judges should have no reason to fear. If you—it’s the guilty who are always afraid. If you have—you are not guilty of any mis—any—any misconduct, and you have no reason to think that you will not make it in the 6 months or 2 years of being watched—but I know because I’ve gone through this same thing myself as an acting—I started as an acting chief registrar, and I want to disclose to you that I was confirmed in service after I had left—after I had been appointed a judge. I was not confirmed in service as chief registrar when I was still around. Why? I—I—I remember someone saying we—we—we want to—to—you to go to a higher bench. Why then should we confirm you in service as a chief registrar? But—but I had to be confirmed in service for purposes of my benefits and—and so on. So yes, I know what it means. Someone can sit on you. We still have such people. I don’t know the one who—who—who never recommended me—whether it was because of my performance or otherwise—that’s for another day—but I was confirmed in service as chief registrar after I had left—long after I had left that office. So yes uh—the—the—the jud—there is room for judges to fear—those on acting status—and that’s why for me I—I wouldn’t—I—I wouldn’t recommend that judges be appointed to this—acting status. No, the act—those—the acting ones should be those ones in—in two C—the temporary judges—because the judicial service commission should be able to see someone and say he—he—he’s professional enough to be appointed a judge—and once he’s—he goes through the interview—the
The question of acting should not arise. So I agree with with with that one.
But for the other ones, within two years, I don't expect anyone to misbehave unless he's not fit to serve as a judge. Maybe I don't know if we have any questions from the audience, but I think there are a number of wonderful takeaways that we've had from you today. Um, we've been here for one and a half hours, uh, talking to the honorable Dr. Justice Yurakam Bamu, Principal Judge Emmeritus, and we'll give we'll give questions. I think some people have sent questions to Alfred. Maybe Alfred, you can read one or two questions. If anyone wants to ask, we can take one or two questions from the audience, and then we'll close it here.
I have a question from Ronald Jingo. He says you would want to have your opinion about the unnecessary transfer of delegate judicial officers in relation to case backlog. I think he's giving a scenario where each officer is having a session which doesn't have case backlog, but then a station which has case backlog, and then they transfer that station having case backlog, and then the person they bring which have case backlog again causes backlog in that station. So the cycle continues; they keep taking this judicial officer having case backlog, then after clearing it is taken to another station. So what's your opinion, your take on the transform of judicial officers, digital digital officers, and then also in relation to this this is from Rafael saying he wants to maybe to understand why they transfer a judge in 3 months, and then so they transfer a judge, and then they they f to deploy a new one after the transfer and 3 months later, I see that's also causing case backlog. I think those are the ones I have of now. As cancer has requested, those who have other questions can send a request to speak. We can then allow them to speak.
Mr. Jingle. Yes, it used that question he has raised actually applied to me a number of times. Yes, you clear the backlog at your station, then they take you to another station where someone has really been massaging that backlog. So you suffer. Yeah. Massaging. Yes. You suffer. And but for me, I never saw it as a as a challenge. If anything, it it it it gave me an opportunity to now outshine the the those others who are not performing because there is nothing as good as going to a station. You work your heart out. You deliver judgments in time. You hear cases on on a daily basis. And people appreciate you. People say bless you. Bless. And for some of us who believe in divine intervention, perhaps that's why we are or we we've been to those places others have not reached, working hard. So yes, I think every station deserves a hardworking judge, a hardworking magistrate. If someone is not working as hard as the other, then when he goes to that other news station, it should be a learning experience for that person. You should You should know why you are being transferred. In most cases, I never even as principal judge, I never disclosed why I was transferring someone. But if I saw a station, a a business station, Barara, Masaka, Bali, suffering and there was a a judge, a hardworking judge who willing to go there. You have to be willing to go. In the judiciary, they don't force you to go and work somewhere. For me, I used to to make those transfers because after some time, if you keep this not working judge in one station, you are really making people suffer, and you know it as a as an administrator, you know that people are suffering and you you you you incidentally I've not seen any judge who has lost a job in this country, uh, on account of being lazy. It's difficult. It's difficult to convince the appointing authority that someone uh uh uh is not good enough to it's difficult. Someone will raise issues. We will raise a defense. I I I'm always being given hard cases, complex cases. Why do you what what would you say? But all in all, I can assure you that this practice, yes, is there and it helps every station deserves a diligent and hardworking judge. And so at at any one given time, each station should test a bit of that lazy judge and the hardworking one for comparison. The the not replacing the transferred judges. No. Yeah, it happens especially when there is a shortage of judges. There there was a time when as principal judge I was not able to send um judges to Fort Porto for instance because I I had no judge to send there. That was I think at the time I remember uh we had sent there justice Kabito and then he was appointed chairman of the judicial service commission and I I I had no replacement. There wasn't no one to send there. It's a delicate you it's a delicate thing removing a judge from one area to another simply because you have transferred someone from that area. But um all factors remaining equal, once you transfer a judge from one station there should be a replacement immediately, otherwise people will suffer; it's not intended; it's just circumstantial; just circumstantial.
I also got a question here actually about the office of the principal judge, whether there's enough space in the system for the principal judge to also belong to one of the what do they call one of the divisions of the high court or to hear cases. Um, the criticism is that over the years the PJ doesn't hear cases while the DCJ sits in the constitutional court, the the chief justice sits in the supreme court. Um, so as a person who held that office and what's your take on that? I think that will be our last question and then we'll ask you for your closing remarks. By the time you are appointed principal judge, you've really had cases. You've done your your you your work. But even then there are cases for you to hear, especially I don't know how I can put it, but you don't belong to any division. As principal judge, you don't belong to any division, but at the same time you belong to all the divisions. So you can get cases from that end from any quarter, and uh if you are not careful, if you are you are a lazy one of the lazy judges, you may take advantage of that because hello is asking whether he can speak. Yes. Let me complete this this one. Uh, a principal judge does not belong to any particular division. It belongs to all the divisions, and uh ideally cases will be coming from those divisions. [Music] The my my predecessor uh Justice Inaba handled so many cases even when he was a principal judge. He handled complex cases and incidentally they they they they contributed to his early departure; really he overworked himself. So it depends on the on on on the chief on the principal judge you have appointed. Fortunately or unfortunately for me, and I put it it's in my book, it's in the I I came in at a time I had a surgical operation on the right arm in 2010 Apo or May, and I was appointed principal judge in in November same. Yeah. I think we're having a challenge with the sound. Um, I don't know if I don't know if the sound is clearer now. No, I think let's let's first hold on. We're having a challenge with the sound. Let's first clear the sound and then um Yeah. Are you hearing us? Yes. Yes. Okay. No, no, let him finish his point. I think I I I I was only left with um the aspect of reforms. Um my view is that the principal judge is um best placed to champion reforms, the re the reforms we've been talking about since we started this conversation because the principal judge is at the center of all the disputes, all the concerns of backlog and and and so on, and that's why for me I in addition to hearing a few cases from family division I I I was handling cases from family division and other divisions, but I concentrated on reforms as a strategy to reduce backlog. I'm the one who chaired the sentencing guidelines task force, and whether it's a success or or otherwise, Ugandans are there to judge. I'm the one who chaired the civil reforms uh uh task force for 3 years until retirement till I retired. So that gave me time to concentrate on these reforms. Unfortunately, it you can't chase both things successfully. You you you you'll be a failure. So, we were able to to reform the laws. My successor, I don't know. I I'm not there to assess his performance, but he continues to chair some of these committees, but he has time to hear cases as well. So there is no contradiction there. I see no contradiction at all. Mediation and we must appate for that. Yeah, we are joined. I see Mr. Dr. Kha has a question. I think Mr. Kohm and your comment. Thank you very much. He was afraid to invite me. Uh, first of all, I am inspired to speak because of the presence of justice. Uh, your presence here sir is a typical it's it's it's you. It's you. You never shy away from doing duty. In fact, when I saw the title of your book, um don't know whe I'm going whether I remember it now, but inspired uh there was what's the title of the book again? Inspired to can somebody help me to make it correct so that I don't make a mistake on the title of the book? By prominence. Yes. Um I think I would have liked to amend that title. You know, spar to prominence, God's grace. I think there was one my lord it was spar to ethical prominence god's grace that became a chief justice on Uganda road and a registra and the judge and judge and handled a lot of mediation sensitive and controversial like that one of Bank of Uganda for you to retire without any in our language we say without any camogo without any black spot on You the title of your book would have had words spark to ethical prominence. In fact, for me prominence stands for being prominent, but for me you have always been ethically prominent. So it is the one which has inspired me to speak because it hurt me that you miss this word in your book because that's you. That's your identity. That's how we lawyers at the bar for a long time and even now you are the first judge to come here and speak to us on backlog and share experiences with us. That is again you typical you. So we are very very honored to have you and listen to you and I'm sure that in your retirement and whatever you touch and also you have left a legacy because thank you for leaving one of your sons as a lawyer. I don't know it's one or two but they have somebody to emulate those whom you have produced for Uganda. I thank you so much for you have done uh in our profession and for the thank you. It is the main reason I really wanted to speak not so much about the content of your delivery today because that was evident 30 years ago that is 1995 to 2025 I don't know whether I'm right or wrong and I think it's like 30 years ago I was in the constituent assembly and I was a keep there for those who were able to follow the events of the time in the constituent assembly. To me it was the highlight of my political and legislative career. The consequent assembly and this article 142 if you check the hazard you will find it very very important in the discussion painful to see that it has never been implemented and so I'm really asking the people that be and I know my lord for this and to give with your support you know and I know if you want to do something in Uganda very few people can resist your lobby. So please give a hand to this young group who have identified the absence of the implementation of that article. You know my lord when you became principal judge Many of us at the bar, we knew what had been going on in the courts before. We knew the the clicks that had developed in the judiciary. Those clicks were so strong that the clicks had you either were for this click or for that click. I don't know what injection you brought but you dissolved those clicks and um I'm always so proud. Every time I see you in any occasion I feel that's the guy I would have if I was still a young man I would have emulated. So thank you sir and with those few words I wish you the best in your retirement and I want your retirement be very active retirement. Thank you.
Thank you so much my friend and dear brother. Thank you so much for the compliment. I'll consider changing the title the the the title of the book. I'm actually in the process of writing another there's a lot I left out. Now I realize I left out a lot. So when it comes to revising it or coming up with another edition, I will see what to do. But thank you so much. I'm humbled. Yes. I was I became chief magistrate Buganda Road at a time when judicial officers would stop at that level. They would not go beyond being chief magistrate. Bugganda road was such a hot spot. But I was able to serve for two years or so. And from there he was appointed a registister in charge of research and training and then later became a judge and principal judge. Uh years later, I I I I went to to to church and I was able to say, "Thank you, Lord, for making me go through judicial service without kamogo." The camogo you talked about. Um, it's not easy, but that's why I thought it was due to God's grace or it was by God's grace. Uh, others never served beyond grade one, the ones I was appointed with, but for me, I made it that high. Yes, I will give support to appointments under article 142. I'm happy this conversation is coming up at this this stage. I'm happy. I've not seen anyone being appointed but it's because of the com perhaps not considering reasons why the constituent assembly put that article in the constitution. It was for a purpose and we've not made use of it. So yes, I will be giving my support and reserved support to whoever will be uh championing this cause. If I get opportunity to talk to JC, I will also uh chip in something. In any case, I've already put it in the book and I'm happy this conversation is taking place. There were clicks in the judiciary. Yes. And it was not easy for me even at my uh age uh uh uh then [Music] to ensure that I don't belong to one group to the prejudice of the other or to but I sailed through because basically I wanted the truth to come out. Wanted my my view has always been the truth will set you free as the Bible says. And um I was able to to to remain neutral not because I did not know that clicks existed but I thought I was the the best person to resist the same so that others could do the same and that's why on appointment as chief registister I made it a going to work with all the administrators in the judiciary, the chief justice, the the deputy chief justice then and the principal judge. So I was able to keep to to be a friend for all the these people much as there was friction between the characters involved. But I was able to stand my ground and uh I I I also attribute that to God's grace. Otherwise, thank you so much for that remark. Thank you. You've made my evening. May God bless you. May God bless you again and again.
I have a comment from Council Nicholas; he says the honorable justice is an inspiration to many generations of lawyers, is a humble Christian, a generous soul, and a fatherly figure. He continues to inspire in retirement as he did on the bench to add that. So I mark I I know Mark you have requested to speak in time we may use at least 2 minutes to either make your comment or ask your question. Thank you. Mark, are you there? Are you there? Are you there? Can you hold me? It's okay. See, I think he's not. Okay. I think we've been here now for the better part of almost 2 hours. The honorable principal judge, the honorable Dr. Justice Bamun firing on all cylinders. You've been addressing hundreds of people, I can assure you, maybe even more, and it's a conversation that has become relevant and powerful. So, we thank you so much for your time and maybe you can have a few closing remarks.
Thank you once again for inviting me to be part of this conversation. I'm humbled and I look forward to participating in more of these conversations now that I've known that you have them every Wednesday around this time. I'll be there. And um on on a on a on a on a sad note um that I accept that piece was not read but the doctor a doctor friend Dr. is the one who really pricked my mind on the issue of judges, mission based judges, his view when there is a problem in the ministry of of of health, old and new doctors, young and old are called upon to go and assist. But when there are problems in the judiciary, when there is a backlog and we have senior lawyers who are will able and willing to assist, no one ever goes upon them to go and clear the the challenge. I thought he was right and that's why I included it in the book. But he has since passed on. Yes, he passed on recently, but I imagine it's a doctor who was brave enough, who was good enough to draw me to the attention of article 142 that this the the constituent assembly put in place this provision, but we've not made use of it. And yet we still cry that backlog is breaking our backs. What is the problem? So I'm very delighted with you people that you are talking about something which will certainly be a game-changer the moment it is implemented in the spirit the constitution. So, thank you so much once again for inviting me to be part of this conversation. I look forward to keeping tuned. Thank you.
Thank you my lord. It has been our honor, our privilege, our pleasure to sit with you here. They say that the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena whose face is covered with blood, sweat, and toil. Who knows the triumph of high achievement and who knows the struggles of having tried. And my lord, the work you've done for the country, for the justice system is evident to all and every lawyer. And we are grateful to you for the work you've done and for the time you've given us this very evening. Two hours of your time, exactly two hours we've been we've been talking for the last 120 minutes with the honorable Dr. Justice Bamun, Principal Judge Emmeritus. To colleagues in the law society, very soon there shall be some breaking news. Um, next week, uh, the law society and the protagonists are appearing in the court of appeal and there shall be some very good news. I'm sure I'm sure that the the things that have been closing the democratic doors, the padlocks on our democracy are going to be removed and that this sort of debate is going to happen to be able to democratize the practice of law and the judicial practice and to operationalize provisions like 142 C of our constitution, A, B and C of our constitution. And so I'm telling the colleagues to open their ears, to open their hearts, to start getting ready from us here to all of you. We'll say what you usually say. But before we do, I just want to assure you when that time comes, you ask yourself the other question. Is still campaigning.