Justice Delayed, Rights Denied: The Human Cost of Judicial Backlog and the Promise of Article 142(2)

Campala. Today we are honored and privileged, our usual team, to have you guys all with us. Um, and we're honored and privileged to have a special guest, a voice for the voiceless, a conscious carrier or conscience. He's both conscious and carries around a conscience. A defender of the weak, a fighter for the meek. Whether it's journalists, whether it's members of the public, whether it's people who have been abused, a person who has stood the test of time, one of the most well-known faces in the human rights space in this country. Someone who spends his day, his night and his morning fighting every hour of every day for the rights of those who cannot fight for themselves. A man who has proved himself in our communities and in our courts. A man who understands the pain of delay in court and who understands the need for justice for the least amongst us. A man of such wit, clarity, knowledge, eloquence, a man of such vision, a man of depth, a man of understanding, a man of human rights who does not like human wrongs. Allow me, ladies and gentlemen, to introduce uh, and I'm also talking about Alfred Maka. Ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, allow me, allow me to give you none other than Mr. Nicholas Opio.

Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, Nicholas.

Oh, Ellison, thank you for your very generous introduction. Um, you know, Ellison is my brother, so when he's being overly generous, you know where that is coming from. But I thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for having me. Um, I have followed uh your spaces for a very, very long time and I must say I'm privileged to be able to join you this evening. So good evening to you. Good evening to my colleagues here in the room, to all the people who have tuned in to share this evening with us.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Nicholas. I'm also joined today by Massi Makabai Chimutai and Alfred Muyaka, our usual hosts of our regga conversations and also by all of you who are joining us. And today we are talking justice delayed, rights denied. And allow me to really kick off the conversation with you, Nicholas. Maybe you can—for I know I know everyone in Uganda knows you. Um, but they know of me, they know of you, but maybe let's let's begin with your journey. Tell us about Nicolas Opio. What do you do and what made you develop such an interest in human rights? Let the people who have turned to listen, let them understand who is Nicholas Opio and like what makes him tick.

Thank you very much, Listen. Let me once again say I'm grateful um to be able to join you today, uh most especially to see Martha. Sorry, sorry, Mari. Marci shares a name with a friend of mine called Martha. So their surnames are Chamai. So Martha and Marci, but what a delight to see you again and uh to see my young brother uh Alfred. Alfred and I ran into each other many years ago in the High Court. We had a matter we were doing together. Um, I have admired him from afar. I think he's one of the most promising advocates of his generation. You are—he was defending the rights abusers. Uh, I've watched your work from afar and what you're doing with young lawyers is indeed remarkable, and and I'm grateful to be uh in your presence. You know, I have uh followed this space um and I think that uh it's a difficult act to follow after the minister of justice, and a part of me thought that you are setting me up to fail. You know, you've had people of prominence um come to this space, and so I thought my good friend really was—he's raised the bar, setting me up to fame, but nonetheless I'm glad to be here. Ellison and I left law school nearly two decades ago. Um, we were in school together uh at the law development center, and uh our nearly two decades of legal practice has given us some experience that I think it is worth to share uh for people to learn from, and um you ask me what my journey is, and I can tell you my journey really begins from from Gulu, born and raised in Gulu. Came to Campala for the first time when I was coming to my O levels. Uh, I was raised in Gulu in a large family. My father uh who is now dead, who passed away about 3 years ago, raised us—at the time of his death I thought we were 54 kids. Um, but at his burial I'm told many others stand up and the count is at 69. Uh, so you can imagine a very large family, and it comes with its own dynamics. So I was born and raised in Gulu. Um, as many of you know the history of this country, Gulu was the epicenter of a very brutal conflict between the Lord's Resistance Army uh led by Joseph Kong and the government of Uganda led by President Mvani. Um, as kids growing up in the war zone, we were frontline witnesses to some of the most gruesome violations of human rights. I now call them violations of human rights because I know human rights. So, with the benefit of hindsight, I can characterize uh what happened then as violations for human rights. But really, it was some of the most difficult things to see in one's life. As a child, oftentimes I went to school jumping over dead bodies. Um, it happened far too many times that I can't even count. The night before the LRA would have staged a raid in Gulu Town, now Gulu City, and uh left dead bodies in their wake. Um, and so you have to go to school nonetheless, and in the morning you have to encounter uh people who had fleshly been freshly been bludgeoned to death uh by the LRA. Um, my own friends, my own family members were abducted into the LRA and were turned into killing machines. Um, as a young child, we walked um many kilometers every day to come and spend the night in the middle of Gulu city to avoid abduction. It became a phenomenon known as the night commuters.

Night commuters.

Exactly. Became night commuters. So I was one of those kids uh up until senior 3 I think when I was at Libby College. We would study in the daytime and sometimes have to run and sleep in the middle of town at night. Um, some of the people who gave us um accommodation as night commuters, like uh professor Lagoro who from Mun University um and so that was my childhood. Um, I saw government soldiers commit hideous crimes, raped, gang-raped two of my stepmothers. Um, I witnessed people who were raped by government soldiers, including men who were sodomized uh by government soldiers. My own father was arrested by government soldiers twice. And so I grew up really as a front-row witness to very heinous human rights violations, and my early childhood experiences fueled really my uh desire to do something first with myself and second for my community. And initially I wanted to be a journalist. Um, so if you go to Gulu, you'll be you'll not be surprised to hear some of my commentary on local FM stations. Um, I was a a football commentator on uh, Gulu Mega FM, commentating the African Cup of Nations. Um, the reason really I wanted to be a journalist was because of a lady called Anna Bazello. Anna Bazo was a BBC reporter in northern Uganda. Uh, so my father's way to teach me how to speak English was to make me listen to the BBC. So he forced me to listen to Focus on Africa. So you can imagine this rural village kid who didn't know English very well having to listen to Robin White on Focus on Africa. And each time I tuned into the BBC at 6:00 in the evening, um, I would hear the voice of Anna Bosello reporting from Guru, and I just wanted to be Anna Bello. I told her this story last year in April when we met in London, and and she's now a retired uh BBC reporter, and she was quite surprised to hear that and and quite pleased as well. And so I wanted to be a journalist, but something happened in 1994. And it has to do with the law society. Many people don't know this. The law society opened its first legal aid clinic in northern Uganda and sent a former Gil president of Mera University as the first project advocate of this clinic. And this young fresh graduate from Meru was the honorable Novat. And he also happened to be a brother. And so I spent a lot of time uh with him just watching what he was doing. First I was curious because he was very smart. He spoke impeccable English, and I wanted to be close to him. He was also very hilarious and a funny guy. Used to spend so much time with my father because my father was tutoring him for local politics, teaching him the local language. And um when I saw him I just wanted to be like this young man. And in 1993 he was involved in a campaign for the CA and very hotly contested campaign with Muse Andra Demola who was a DP national chairperson at the time. Jose Demola was in his 80s, and we would go for his campaign rallies—those days rallies were held together—and he just captivated young people of our generation, and I wanted to be a lawyer. So fueled by my own personal experiences, I thought that being a lawyer was a better option, and from then on I committed myself uh to the pursuit of of the law and uh did everything else to be able to make it to law school. Again, when I sat senior 4 at St. Joseph's College Lib, it was Mao who drove his vehicle and picked me up from from Gulu cuz I was going to end up in a local secondary school. My father with all his many kids couldn't pay me in a better school perhaps down south. So he drove me to um to Campala, sent me away to uh his own school where he has studied uh called MM College Waka in Ginger. Many people know him for studying in Amalyango, but really he began his senior one from MM college in Ginger. I think there was a very bad strike. He didn't lead this strike, but he ran away from the school. So he had a history with the school, and he took me to that school, and that's that was my first time coming to Campala, and uh as they say uh the rest is history.

Thank you.

Thank you Nicholas. Um, you know when you talk about being a journalist, many people think that in the regular conversations we become DJs. They keep asking me where—but we even have a song. The the only thing we don't have is adverts. But maybe maybe maybe maybe let me hand over to Alfred to take us through the next uh segment. But maybe before Alfred comes in, I can also tell you that uh before Alfred comes in, I can tell you that uh I spent all my university years actually volunteering for the law society at the Legal Aid Clinic in Gulu. Uh because I was just so captivated by the work. I could have spent my time in the city here uh but I chose to always take the bus to go back to Gulu to work for the legal aid clinic of the law society. So for a good four years every university holiday I sat at the legal aid clinic of the law society, um went to the field, mediated conflict, advised people with a little knowledge of the law that I had at the time, um did radio um education and awareness creation. Um, and some of the people that I worked with at the law society in Gulu. I think my first project advocate when I was already a law student was Haw Tamaris Aabilis, who's I think the chief magistrate now of uh Enbe magistrate court. Uh people like advocate Jimmy Madira—in fact Madira was the first person to write for me a letter of recommendation when I was looking for a job after law school. uh people like Koma Kilama who was also a council member of the law society at some point, and so my my my my legal practice career really is shaped in large part by um my association with the law society. So um I'm really grateful that uh um I became a lawyer and a part of the law society. And I think for for those who don't know um Nicholas also served as the general secretary of the Uganda Law Society, contested for the presidency of the Uganda Law Society and lost—Mr. and is one of the big reasons why the Uganda Law Society had to change the way it conducts its elections because of because of the the type of election that was had first. I think before him there was Chino. No, no. There was um James, no. Simon Tendo Kaben and then Nicholas. Those two contests, iconic contests for the presidency of the law society, changed the way the law society conducts the elections. Before that, we used to have selections, now we have elections. So, you have given a lot of your time to the law society, and many of the people who are listening to us are members of the law society. And the next speaker is a very serious member of the law society, Mr. Alfred Maka, who has also dedicated a lot of his time to fighting for the cause of lawyers.

Yeah. As I first met I think in 2018 when he was trying to—justice and I don't know whether—ing justice or what I was—feelings on you might not—don't do this when—and then come back to that exact—so I think if I even found—I don't know what I now understand what inspired and everything but that other people I'm happy the found forever but the foundation—how was it during the process and even how it is now without your active.

Yeah. Thank you, Alfred. I remember our encounter and I'm glad you took lessons from our short interaction. Then um the story of chapter 4 really is one that is linked to the state of our politics. If if I can be brutally frank, because in the 2001 elections there were many incidents of human rights violations. Uh people were killed on the streets of this city. Um people were arrested and disappeared. The opposition that lost in that election mounted a campaign of civil resistance.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Well, um, just to say thank you very much. Uh, I'm glad that our encounter left some impression on you. Um, but the story of chapter 4 really is a story that is linked to the politics of our country. uh after the 2001 elections there were many reported cases of human rights violations. There were incidents of torture, and throughout that time I used to work for a human rights organization called the foundation for human rights initiative. We were being asked to provide free legal representation to so many people who were being arrested. And when I left the foundation for human rights initiative, I' I'd left really to join uh Meru University to study for my master's degree. Um eventually I dropped out. So I'm really a school dropout from Meru. I think they had some problems at the time with the law school and that made it very difficult for many people to finish their studies. But when I dropped out, I joined a law firm and a consulting firm called Akiju, and were helping people um to draw human rights programs to be able to respond to rights abuses. But all the meanwhile also I was being called up to help civil society. Each time everybody was arrested, I was the guy they called. So, I was called the poor man's lawyer because I turned up at police stations, in court, uh sometimes to help people I didn't even know. Um, but that that experience left me spread really very thin. And so we decided that we should make this work a little bit more structured. And so the idea of chapter 4 was formed. Really in my mind I wanted to form something along the line of the American Civil Liberties Union, a principled uh voice for the Defense of Human Rights of every Ugandan regardless of who you are. And so we began to think about a name uh of the organization. And I can tell you that in one of my most inspiring moments in the shower—but naked—not to paint a picture, the name chapter 4 popped up, and I quickly left the bathroom to go and write it down cuz I thought we are defending human rights. Human rights are contained in the bill of rights uh in our constitution. Um, and what better name to call it than chapter 4. So I quickly went and scribbled down the name Chapter 4, and we registered a company called Chapter 4 Uganda Limited at the time, um a nonprofit company, and subsequently changed it into an NGO. So for the last 15 years, Chapter 4 has been um an organization at the forefront of some of the most difficult human rights discussions in our country. When we started forming the organization, many people doubted us. I can tell you I approached senior lawyers in this town. The only senior lawyer who agreed to work with us was Lisa Rakafuzi. And up to now, Lisa Rockuzi is a founder member of chapter 4. The other senior lawyer who agreed to work with us is Dr. Kabumba with his colleague Dan Gabano. But many people really didn't want to work with us. They asked the questions, who are you? Guani. That was the first time I heard the word Guani. I don't speak Luganda, but really people doubted us. Um, some lawyers whose names I won't mention here now had tried to create something similar with uh people like Ingred Turinawe, uh people like an Misha and Dr. had formed something called the citizens bureau, and so many of the lawyers that I approached who I thought were prominent in this space had put all their baskets in the citizens bureau, but the citizens bureau was being run by people who were deeply involved in politics, who were partisan—we didn't want to be partisan, so we created chapter 4 really uh and many people doubted us—that doubt really in many ways was an inspiration for us as well to succeed uh because once we got registered. Uh people like Jackie Simu were our very, you know, early supporters of of chapter 4, provided for us the financial support to be able to uh rent office space, to be able to pay staff, and um chapter 4 has uh since then grown into an organization that it is today. At the beginning of this year, I took the difficult decision to leave chapter 4. Um, so I am now unemployed, but I thought that uh it was important for the organization to grow. It had become synonymous with me, and four years ago we began a process to prepare for transition. uh we hired an OD development practitioner uh who did leadership coaching for a mid-tier leadership, and uh we transitioned, and I am now not an ED of chapter 4. Chapter 4 is now being led by a young lawyer uh called Masake Anthony, and it is doing very well, if I may say—it's doing very well.

Thank you very much Nicholas for that very rich history, and unfortunately for me unlike my colleagues I have—this is my first time meeting you physically, but I have definitely heard about you a lot and read a lot of your work, and for many of the listeners on our space today I think they're asking themselves why is the conversation around human rights uh important right now, why is it urgent—I know we have elections coming up um we have several violations that are happening even right now, but what would you consider a human rights violation, a human a human human rights, and also why is that conversation important right now—so I didn't mention—sometimes I do some part-time teaching and so I teach this as a subject, but for the purposes of this discussion I do not want to speak about human rights in the theoretical jurisprudential, you know, sense because I don't think it's helpful for the people who are listening uh I don't I think this is a lecture hall. This is a—I mean Alfred is a lecturer, but I think it's a discussion. So for re for really very practical reasons I'm going to define human rights in very simple terms, but in terms that I think encapsulate the very core essence of human rights. Um, in my view, I think distilled to its very essence, human rights is really about the dignity of a human person. It's about justice and fairness for all, regardless of their status, economic or social, regardless of their beliefs, religious or otherwise, or even regardless of their sex or sexual expressions. That for me really is what captures the concept of human rights because every one of us, regardless of who we are, would want to have a sense of self-dignity, a sense of justice and a sense of fairness, and that to me is what human rights really is. Um, Article 20 of the constitution of the republic of Uganda provides that fundamental rights and freedoms are inherent. Me—the operational word there is inherent. He says they're inherent and not granted by the state. So the word inherent really for me is the is the word that captures my attention in that article because

Inherent really connotes an existence of a permanent, essential characteristic, attribute of a human being. It is vested in a human being, not as a privilege. And so every one of us, regardless of who you are, from the highest office to the least person in this country—if there's such a person as the least person—is entitled to human dignity, to fairness, and to justice. The role of the state really is to guarantee, is to protect those rights, because the state does not grant it. And the constitution, in Article 20, sub-article 2, says that all organs of the state are commanded to respect, uphold, and promote human rights. So human rights are really a fundamental, inherent human value that all of us are entitled to, regardless of who you are.

Now, there's always a confusion between human rights and fundamental rights, but that's a conceptual discussion, um, that that I think we we we can have. Um, but human rights are not an abstract. They operate within a certain context. And I think in Uganda we must recognize that the expressions, enjoyments of rights are intricately linked to the governance, to the cultural norms, and to our own history as a people. And so even though human rights are inherent, they're exercised within those contexts. And so we must not get lost about what that context is. And our constitution really captures that content, that context in the preamble of the constitution. Many lawyers read the constitution, but we don't read the preamble. But the most important part of that constitution, really, that gives you the spirit of the constitution is the preamble of the constitution. It lays down the principles upon which that constitution is premised. And I would invite everybody, layman or lawyer, lay woman or lawyer, to read the preamble of our constitution that talks about the history of our country, that talks about our commitment as a people to ensure a non-recurrence of the turbulent history of our country.

But also, human rights, in spite of that context, is also an evolving norm. It's not a permanent. So rights keep getting defined and codified, and codified. Uh, to the extent that Article 45 of our constitution gives um, us room for the inclusion of other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution because you can't lay them all out. We are now talking about—uh, I just returned from my trip uh, from New York, and I was speaking to some people who are involved in real estate. It's something like called, in property law, as air rights. Okay, you want to build a house that uh, will go above somebody's house that is pre-existing. That person must give you air rights to build your high-rise above his building. You know, very interesting concept. So they're all manners of rights. And so that, for me, is uh, what human rights is.

Now, why is human rights really important in this time in our country? I think that first it is just important at all times, but it's even more important now because of the state of our democracy, the state of our politics. If you take a look at any indices that uh, every year measures the state of human rights, Uganda is described in many ways as a competitive authoritarianism. Okay, we have competition, elections, but you have autocratic tendencies still alive in our country. But the second reason really is that in all of that competitive authoritarianism that is characterized by restrictions of rights in practice—because we have very good laws on human rights, but the practice is quite different from the theory—uh, in all of that you have a judicial system that, let's admit, is quite different from what this country had 20 years ago, 60 years ago. Some might even argue under Idi Amin there was no judiciary. Judges were being arrested and jailed. Now we don't arrest judges. But in spite of all of that, there are glaring challenges in the Ugandan judiciary. Um, because the judiciary is the custodian of human rights, is the guardian. We have good laws and we have bad human rights practices because the laws are not being implemented. There are people who are abusing it, and the judiciary as a guardian of that concept uh, has been put on the spotlight. The judiciary in Uganda has been accused of corruption. It's been accused of delayed justice. It's been accused of so many other things. But at the heart of it really is the question of access to justice that so many Ugandans still face challenges of access to justice. And so because of the state of our judiciary, because of the state of our politics and our democracy, there's heightened concern about uh, human rights in this country. And I think that unless something dramatic happens, these concerns will remain. Uh, these concerns must be the concerns of every single person in this country. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Maybe before I go, my next question—I'm going to ask a question which I don't—I want to ask at this moment before I lose it—wondering when people talk about human race, they practice, so think if practitioner, you're not first thing in mind is criminal—I want to say criminal law—are they more the same or so? As a concept, human rights is really everything that the law is, whether you're a commercial practitioner, whether you are a criminal practitioner or a civil practitioner; all of those facets of the law touch on fundamental rights and freedoms, and so you don't have to be um, a human rights lawyer, be a human rights practitioner, because in the commercial space uh, there are also deep human rights concerns. Uh, I think many people put a lot of focus on civil and political rights, right? But you have first-generation rights, second-generation rights, and third-generation rights. All of those are human rights. I know people who are doing incredible work in the education space. Um, an organization called ISA, people like Alana Kimbabazi, uh, people like um, uh, Shifra are doing fantastic work in ensuring that our kids have access to education. Access to education is also a right. And so human rights is really not just confined to civil and political rights. Even though often times in practice we associate human rights with civil and political rights—the freedom from torture, the freedom of expression and assembly—but I think that disproportionate attention being given to civil and political rights is to the disservice of social and economic and cultural rights. It is in the disservice of third-generation rights, like the right, rights to to development. And so every person, in whatever you do, view yourself first and foremost as a human rights defender. We call ourselves lawyers, human rights lawyers, because we have studied human rights law. But really everybody should be a human rights defender because the constitution, like I said in Article 20, clause 2, does not give this duty only on the state. It says all individuals have the obligation to promote human rights. And so human rights really is about human existence. It's about humanity. And so I think everybody, we must have a paradigm shift so that Merci, who is a commercial lawyer, understands that in commercial disputes there are deep questions of human rights. Once you begin to view that as a human rights issue, your conduct of your practice will be a whole lot different, and I think a whole lot more humane and a whole lot more just. I think that's—because I don't practice—but now I get it.

Now let's go to my question—lawyer for the last 15 years or even a decade. So my question is, do you believe the average Ugandan, and especially the poor you have been representing for almost 10 years, can, can meaningfully access justice through our current system? So, a black-based human rights organization called the HILL—I forget the full uh, meaning of the acronym HILL—a couple of years ago came down here and did a study on access to justice, and it was really very revealing uh, in so many aspects. First, the formal justice process only contributes to about 35% of disputes resolved in this country. Many people in this country resolve disputes using other justice systems, where the cultural systems uh, in the area of Karamoja, elders uh, were resolved, and the question was then asked why is this the case? I think a couple of things became clear from that report: that the justice system, in the way it is currently framed and practiced, is exclusionary and does not enjoy the legitimacy in the eye of a vast majority of rural and illiterate Ugandans, many of whom resort to the use of other justice systems. uh, we found people who were doing, were resolving conflict through churches, resolving conflict through community elders, through community associations. Um, in the Muslim community, we found that divorce uh, which was um, not a very common phenomenon, was largely being handled by mosques and muftis; they have a system of dealing with divorce there. They saw that as more legitimate than court divorce. Um, among the Catholics they have the can, the canonical group that was dealing with questions of marriage. So much so that even people who went to the court system first got divorced in the church. Uh, and so there was a question whether the justice system in this country enjoys the trust of many people, because if it did, people would resort to that justice system to resolve disputes. The second question that arose from that study really is the question of access to justice, and access has many levels. First, physical access—the difference between community and a court, physical court. Uh uh, they discovered that courts were very far from many rural communities. um, is a big problem for many people, especially in places where the transport infrastructure was not well developed, in places where people were mainly illiterate uh, physical access to justice became a barrier. They also had economic reasons, because in the village people had to go to the garden first uh, before they can attend to anything else. They leave the garden about 11:00 midday, and by that time court time is 9:00. Uh, many people would have uh, forfeited uh, access to courts, and so access to courts in terms of just physical access was a big barrier to access to justice. But additionally, even in cases where people actually had access to court, the procedure and processes of court were alien to them. uh, you're not allowed to speak; somebody speaks on your behalf; uh, it was difficult to understand the language; even in places where people didn't speak English, the court would insist on speaking English through an interpreter, and so much was lost through interpretation, and so access to justice still remains a huge challenge for a vast majority of people across this country, and this is not just complicated by the factors I've mentioned. There are also other factors of corruption, inefficiency, um, and and and and and all of this combined uh, to make access to justice still very difficult for a vast majority of poor people. In many cases, people even don't want to go to court because they think that if I went to court, first the court is captured by the elite and and and big powerful corporates. But even if I went to court, somebody can appeal that case until the Supreme Court. And between my reporting to court and getting justice could be a good 15 years because of the slow justice process, and so access to justice remains a very difficult thing for very many people in this country. The courts have uh, the government has done some, you know, taken some steps. uh, we have now created more court circuits. We have now created u uh, magistrates courts at every sub-county. But even that still leaves a lot of challenges to access to justice for many people across the country. And I'll just give you an example. I think we have focused on, and I I'll I'll speak more about this when I'm proposing a solution to the problem of the court system. We are focused on one aspect of the justice system, the judiciary. We are appointing many judges. We are appointing many magistrates. But there are other people involved in the ecosystem who are not correspondingly being uh, being appointed and and and and you're solving one problem but creating many others. Um, I went to court in Karamoja. There's a new court that has that has been open. There's only a magistrate there. Um, I think two now um, with one prosecutor. So judicial officers line up waiting for prosecutors; says I'm first appearing before your colleague; you wait. So you're taking tea, reading newspapers because there's no prosecutor to prosecute the case. And so all of that I think makes access to justice still a huge challenge for many people in this country. Thank you, Nicholas, for that.

Um, I think I want to take us to this issue of Kiss Back. Uh, because ultimately, as we are court users and most of our clients come to us seeking advice and access to these court systems to get some form of justice. In your experience of over 20 years and two decades as you've mentioned, how have you found delays in managing cases affecting access to justice for vulnerable clients and for the people who are in these marginalized groups, for instance, that you've been interacting with? And which experience maybe would you say is most outstanding as an example, a story that really resonated with you and and drove you further in this journey to fight for increased access of justice for our communities? Thank you. Uh, first of all, let me be spiritual and quote for you the Bible uh, if it drives the point for uh, many people who are listening or who are involved in the justice system. And I will quote for you first Proverbs 21:15, that says, "When justice is done it brings joy to the righteous but terror to the evildoers." I'll quote for you Amos 5:24. This has been made famous by Martin Luther King in his famous "I Have a Dream" speech, and he says uh, "Let justice thunder down like a like a waterfall. Let righteousness flow like a mighty river that never runs dry." If the Ugandan system was a river, that river is being polluted. That river is being diverted, and many people are being denied their right to access water in that river. So really, that, for me, is uh uh, for anybody who is biblical uh, delayed justice is, in fact, unbiblical. It is it is really something that we must take seriously because it has real-life human implications. I've done so many cases where sometimes as a lawyer you even feel helpless because the justice system that you champion has let you down. I'll give you two cases. One is a life case pending before the court system that has been in that court system now for 9 years. A family returning home from a New Year festivity. Four people were shot through the windows of their car here in Manda Road. On Manda Road. Two kids were killed. Two adults were maimed, and um, we took on, you know, those cases, filed a case in court seeking justice for this family. Nine years on. These cases have not been concluded. The kids have been buried. Their mother who got injured fell ill and died. The father is aging and is ill. Up to now there's no justice for them. We keep going back to the civil division of the high court, and there's adjournment after another, technicalities after another. If you are a member of this family, what would you think? Second case really is the case that happened in the last election of a man I met in Lugazi. He had refused to speak to our researchers because I think he didn't trust anyone. His child had been shot and killed in the November protest. But when I called him eventually because of perhaps who I am, he agreed to speak with me, and I spent several hours at his house. We sat in his house with a coffin of his child lying on the floor, and the news at 9:00 came up, and the minister of the state was saying, "The state has a right to kill you." His child in a coffin in his living room, holding on to this child. I couldn't help but see this man cry. And he was crying really because two other kids of his had been killed in previous protests during the walk-to-work protest. One of his children was killed during the Buganda riot in 2009. Another child had been killed. And these guys were being killed just because they were mechanics. They ran a garage. And when there are protests, the presumption is that mechanics were supplying tires that were being used by protesters uh, to burn on the street. We filed cases to try and pursue justice for this family. And I can tell you 5 years down the road, no justice, nothing. Nothing has happened to that family. They have not been able to realize any fruits of any justice. There's no accountability for the people who are involved in the killing of his son. And they know the people because they saw them because one of them is an LDU in the area. And and and this child who had been sent from the garage to go and buy chapati for breakfast was shot by a person that he knew. They, his friends in the garage were seeing him. So they knew the person who shot him. Up until now there's no justice. And so delayed justice has a real human cost. It is a threat to the safety and security of the people in this country. Those people will not like the system, not just the justice system, the political system in the country, because they think that political system first failed to prevent the killing of their children, but even when their kids were killed, failed to give them justice. In one hilarious case, we had a client in Nakawa court who had been convicted by a magistrate uh, of an offense of robbery, and we appealed his decision before Justice Musal Museni, who is now deceased as well—8 years in prison. He had been given a 4-year sentence, but the appeal was in that court, in the high court at Nakawa, for more than eight years. When the case came up for appeal, prisons had released the fellow, and he had served his sentence, and they couldn't even tell where he was, and his appeal was coming up. So you can imagine to that person waiting 8 years for an appeal for a sentence that he has served, really. You only appeal for academic reasons to clear a real record. And so delayed justice has a real human cost and in many cases compounds people's sufferings in ways that is debilitating and indeed uh, deeply, deeply, deeply upsetting. Thank you, Nicholas. You have really given a biblical setting; justice is even notical at all. So by delaying justice as if we are supporting Satan on whatever we are doing. If if you if you're a Christian, if you're a Christian, this really should offend your faith. It means that delayed justice is giving victory to people who are evildoers. So choose a side. Whose side are you on? Are you on the side of evildoers or the righteous? If you're on the side of the righteous, please deliver justice fairly and quickly. Thank you for the time remaining. I will support—I'll stop supporting the—in that—get saved. Amen.

So I think my question is now—you have given the impact of the human impact of justice on the people—but now that left me wondering what is the impact on the public? What impact does that same justice have on public trust in the judicial system and even on the bearing of those who wait for forever to get justice? Maybe because I've practiced law now for nearly two decades and and but when I was still young, I used to revere judges and magistrates, really; they were very important people in in in this town, and if they told you a judge was coming, you know, you were very respectful; uh, you knew that this person was the was the real human expression of justice. You you saw them and you respected them. I don't think I have the same respect anymore as a practitioner for many judicial officers. Not because of who they are, although in part it might be, but because of the system in which they serve and what that system has become. We used to go to court. You used to walk to court like an altar. You know, felt like you're in the presence of God if you are in an altar in a church, right? Or if you are in a shrine with a with a with a with a witch doctor? You feel like you're in the presence of God, right? The presence of spiritual presence. The same thing was about court. You went to court. You believe that I have come here, I will find justice. You saw justice in court. I don't think in the eyes of many people, me included now, think about courts in the same way, much less about people who work in the courts. I think even lawyers now don't enjoy the respect they used to enjoy many years ago. They now view us as conmen. Many of us as conmen; they view us as participants in this unjust process. Uh, and indeed many of us are acquiescent to this kind of injustice. And so what that has done over time is to hollow out from the judiciary public trust in that process as a just process. Um, really, if you speak to many lawyers in this town, they will tell you many of us are transacting in court. We are not litigating, and you can see that by the quality of decisions coming out.

Of the court system. When I was in law school, one of the decisions I read and read over and over again was Justice Mena Bo and Andrew Menda versus attorney general. The case that nullified section 50 of the penal court act. You could see a decision, a real discourse between the judges of the court of appeal and the judges of the Supreme Court. Any lawyer worth his salt must read that decision.

Nowadays, if you get that kind of decision, you are lucky—you are really lucky. I have picked up court decisions where it is 30 pages, but 28 pages are regurgitation of the submissions of lawyers: council for the applicant said this, council for the respondent said this; in my analysis, therefore, it gives a judgment—two pages. You wonder whether that judicial officer exercised their mind in reaching a just decision in that case. All of these things leave people with very low respect for the court system.

If you carried out an opinion poll for a long time, the judiciary and the police were competing for who was top on the corruption index, right? The trust in the judicial process is eroded every time we allow inefficiency, corruption to fester in the judiciary. Trust in the judicial system continues to be eroded each time you allow backlog in the court system because people don't see that place as a place for justice. And no wonder a vast majority of people in this country do not use the courts as a mechanism for resolution of disputes.

The second thing really is this: that injustice in the court system really is injustice to the people who are affected by a dispute. Think about it: I have a case that I am doing right now. It's a divorce matter, uh, that has gone on for the last four years. Four years—just a divorce matter—because there are applications after applications. If applications don't come, the judges, the judge is out for a conference. The judge is out for a meeting, uh, at at at the high court for years—no justice—and this is a case involving minor children where there's a request for maintenance from one party against the other. These kids sometimes have had to miss school, not because of a fault of their own, but because the justice system where they had gone to seek justice has just failed them. So these things have real human costs, and just to add, they also have an economic cost because if you read the national development plan of of the country, it makes a very useful connection between economic development and respect for human rights and makes certain commitments on the part of the state to ensure access to justice and respect for human rights. Okay.

But it appears the judiciary and the NPA are not speaking to each other. They're not speaking to each other because the practice in the in the court system is quite different. Uh, the practice in the justice system, even beyond courts, is really quite different. But violations of human rights and the failure of the judicial system to resolve it is also a security concern because people who don't find justice in court will look for justice elsewhere, and many times some people will resort to uh mob justice or mob injustice, if you like, especially in cases where there are land disputes. Um, I come from a part of the country where land dispute is, you know, the biggest contributor to case backlog in courts. You might find a criminal case for assault, but really the case is not about assault; it comes from a land dispute between families and and and people in the same family. And so you are really holding up that land from being produced, I mean from being productive, if you do not resolve that land conflict in a court system. So it is a security risk; it is an economic uh risk to this country. Um, over and above that, it is—it has real human cost for real human beings. And in my practice, uh, sometimes I've lost the will to practice because the very system that I trust to be able to deliver justice has failed my own clients.

In one case involving somebody called Daudia, I can speak about this case because the case has now been concluded. Uh, my client had been charged in court uh, in Gulu. Um, we kept on applying for bail. They never gave us bail when he qualified for mandatory release on bail. Back then they still released people. The magistrate released him on mandatory bail even though the offense was a capital offense. Inside the courthouse, before a magistrate, armed men came and plucked my client from my hand. Really, I I didn't know what to do. I didn't know what to do. That family had looked to me to get their son justice, and they never got that justice. It took us many more months to get that case before a high court judge in Kampala, and eventually got the case dismissed. But imagine what happened in the intervening period, and even me as a lawyer, I felt helpless in a court, where in a place where I had thought I would find sanction, find justice.

Um, thank you, Nicholas. If you're just joining us, welcome to Judicial Service Conversations. The topic today is justice delayed, rights denied, and we have no better person than Nicholas Opio, who is taking us through it. Um, there are a lot of tears right now. People hearing stories of uh of of of pain and and and and and judicial discomfort. Uh, please, if you're joining us, don't hesitate to ask a question. Um, send your question in. We'll be able to address them. We'll try and finish today's space earlier um than we usually do. We usually take an hour, Nicholas; that's the promise you make to listen. We, but uh, owing to issues to do with backlog, when you're talking about backlog, you end up um um um delaying; you know, you you spoke about land, and and you know, I I just remembered that somebody told me that um land matters, and not just in one area where where you practice, or land matters are a problem everywhere. So someone said that back in the day, land matters are the cause of the of offenses under the witchcraft act, under the act. Offenses like um offenses like uh malicious damage, criminal trespass, nuisance—all these things which the police struggle with are really cases to do with the fact that a land case in Uganda has an average time span of 5 years.

I I remember I just handled a matter in um in Jinja which I think began in 1994, and we have gotten judgment, and the other guy decided to put in a notice of appeal. Um, and and and so a lot of people—criminal; if you look at criminal cases—uh, you gave us the example of someone who who served his sentence before the appeal. The constitution, chapter 4 of the constitution, article 28, for those who don't know, chapter 4 is the chapter of our constitution dealing with human rights; so when Nicholas said that he was somewhere, somehow that he was somewhere in a certain state, and what a brilliant idea to name it chapter 4—some people thought it was the fourth chapter of a song you are singing in that in that moment—um, but chapter 4 is the fourth chapter of the 1995 constitution of Uganda. And that fourth chapter deals with um human rights. And the 28th article says that one of the rights people have is the right to a fair trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 44 C. Chapter 4, article 44 C of that 1995 constitution provides that the right to a fair hearing is non-derogable. In fact, I've miscoded article 28. You'll forgive me. It says that people have a right to a fair and speedy trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. And so really the question, Nicholas, is how do these delays—mean by how do these delays square with the idea, the constitutional idea of of um uh of a fair trial. But just before you do that, I have just seen a question—someone is really—someone has asked me to really explain what is chapter 4. By chapter 4 is the constitution. So the constitution has chapters, and the chapters there also have articles. So each chapter has a certain number of articles, but the articles move from article one until the end. So if you reach article one up to whatever the next chapter, you continue—the articles continue moving chronologically—for those who don't know; and when you reach the fourth chapter, I think the first article of the fourth chapter is the 20th article of the constitution, and it uh it deals with what I think Nicholas had cited it um so that is what chapter 4 means to that very interested person who is asking that very serious question. And I would have told you who the person is, but I'll stay.

No, let me let me expand on that and tell you that like any book—the Bible has verse, chapters, books of the Bible. The constitution also has chapters. The Ugandan constitution has—I don't know if any lawyer in the room knows how many chapters it has. Guys want to offer an opinion on how many chapters it has? It has 19 chapters. Okay. Chapter one deals with the power of the people, the constitution as a grand no, and what is derived from. Anybody knows what chapter two is about? You want to you want to look at it. So chapter two of the constitution, uh, let me just get it for you here, talks about the republic of Uganda, defines the official language, defines the land boundary of the country, gives uh gives uh people where they come from, and chapter three deals with citizenship—who is a Ugandan and how do you become a Ugandan? Chapter four is the chapter that deals with human rights. And so when you see chapter four, it is the fourth chapter in a 19-chapter constitution of the Republic of Uganda and was enacted in 1995. Now, if you could also handle this issue of the the right to a fair and speedy trial and what impact the lack of that right on many people has.

So like you pointed out, the right to a fair and speedy trial is a right that under no circumstances—when you say non-derogable, it's it's a term of trade. It's it's simply means under no circumstances should that right be violated. It is invaluable. It it it it we are commanded to ensure that that right should not be violated under any circumstance. There can be no excuse. There are only a select few rights that fall in that category: the freedom from torture, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, the freedom from slavery and servitude, and the right to habeas corpus. These rights should not be abused under any circumstances. So by delaying trials of people, we are really violating the constitution first and foremost. Uh, I was talking to somebody earlier today in preparation for this space, and I asked them what they understood by a fair trial, and they said a fair trial really in Uganda is pronounced by its abuse, not respect. And I found that a very powerful statement—that when we speak about human rights, we really speaking about something being abused and beaten and tortured and you know denigrated every day as opposed to a core fundamental principle of our constitution. So unfair trials, delayed trials are a violation of the constitution, a very important article of the constitution. They are also a violation of customary international law because these freedoms and rights that are non-derogable have attained a standard in international law that is described as that which offends the conscience of the international community, and we all have committed not to violate this right. So that we have unfair trials and delayed trials in this country is a violation of national and international law. And like I said, it is also a violation of the biblical command. Okay? Which requires justice to flow like a waterfall. A waterfall is fast. A waterfall is quick. It is swift in its ways. It is also clean because it is pure of impurities. The Uganda justice system violates all of these uh uh principles when we have delayed trials. I'll give you an example. There are cases where the constitution even gives or or laws give specific time within which that matter must be handled because they deem them very urgent. Take the instance—an application for habeas corpus. Somebody has been disappeared. You have gone to court to ask the court to bring the person dead or alive. That's what habeas corpus meant: Bring the body of this person dead or alive before this court so that we can determine the legality of their detention. In many cases, habeas corpus applications uh in my in my experience have taken me four months to handle. In one case, I stood before a judge who I will not mention at the civil division. I even knew the building where the client was being detained, and you could see that building from the fourth floor of the civil division of the high court because it was right near Metropole Hotel, and I said the man is being detained—I suspect in that building. You are telling me to come back after 4 months. The judge gave me his calendar. I said, "Pick a date that is free." In fact, I pleaded with him because there was no free date on the calendar. Even the four months was was was an earlier date. And so that person was being detained in a safe house. That person was being tortured for the four months. They could not produce him in court. So delayed justice has actual life implication for people like that. I have so many other cases in the constitutional court. The constit—the rules of the constitutional court require that when the constitutional matter is is is filed, it must be heard quickly. It says that the court must even suspend everything else and can even sit on weekends and public holidays. I have cases in that court that have been pending for the last six years, for the last 5 years because the court cannot find time to hear me. And so these sort of cases visit continued violation of the constitution and the rights of fellow Ugandans in ways that are in many ways uh I can't even explain because people who run to court really are desperate—uh, people who run to court, many of them—not all of them—some of them really run to court for other reasons, but the vast majority of people who run to court really are seeking help, seeking assistance, and by delaying hearing their cases, you are really, really shattering their hopes for justice. And like I said before, it can lead to violence. It can lead to all manners of economic issues; it can lead to insecurity in this country. And so delays and unfair trials uh really, for me, is the greatest and gravest abuse uh anybody can face in the criminal justice system. It compounds your abuse because if you allege a right has been abused—let's say you allege a violation of say the freedom from torture. Okay, you have already been tortured physically. You have been tortured. The court can even see you've been tortured. Then you go to court and use evidence, and you have to wait 5 years for your case to be decided. You are being revictimized by this court system. So it compounds violations of human rights, and in in in in in in so many ways it is it is unconscionable that you have unfair trials and delayed trials in the court system, especially when we have the tools to be able to deal with these kind of issues in our court system.

Okay. Um, thank you so much. Um, if you're just joining us, we are with Mr. Nicholas Opio discussing justice delayed, rights denied, and we are taking all your questions um about the preamble of the Ugandan constitution. Uh, and again that is a a nice technical word. Um, preamble is just the beginning part of the constitution, and and and and I'll tell you that we had a guest on this show called um Senior Counsel Dr. Muzi Sikahani, who is a a South African lawyer, a senior counsel in South Africa, an acting judge in South Africa, and and and Muzi told us that we have one of the most unambitious—un—he said that our the preamble to our constitution is not bold enough. He said neither is the one of South Africa, and he told us to go and look at the one of Bolivia. Now, for the preamble—that's the introduction to the constitution—and maybe before I go into the next question, it would be good for many people who don't know what that is to just read for them what the delegates to the Constituent Assembly wrote into our constitution on the 22nd day of September 1995. Now, just for for those who want to know, the constitution came into force a few weeks later, I think on the 7th of October, but on the 22nd of September 1995, at the very beginning of the constit—of the constitution, they said: "We the people of Uganda, recalling our history which has been characterized by political and constitutional instability, recognizing our struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression, and exploitation, committed to building a better future by establishing a socioeconomic and political order through a popular, durable national constitution based on the principles of unity, peace, equality, democracy, freedom, social justice, and progress, exercising our sovereign and inalienable right to determine the form of governance for our country and having fully participated in the constitution-making process, noting that a constituent assembly was established to represent us and to debate the draft constitution prepared by the Uganda Constitutional Commission and to adopt and enact a constitution for Uganda, do hereby in and through this constituent assembly solemnly adopt, enact, and give to ourselves and to our posterity this constitution of the republic of Uganda this 22nd day of September in the year 1995." Now that's the preamble, and I'll not I'll not read for people the Bolivian preamble, and someone was saying it's not ambitious enough because it doesn't call out some of the challenges and uh he he gave his reasons for for not having it ambitious enough, but why why why you talked about the preamble—what I remember very clearly about Muzi and also we had another guest from South Africa called Benjamin Beki—and one of the things they do in South Africa to solve this problem—unbiblical problem—because we've heard from Nicholas that the problem of backlog is unchristian, is ungodly, is a violation of national security, is immoral, is a violation of human rights. It is the revictimization of victims. It is over-the-top. It is evil. It is altogether bad manners to have backlog; the idea that a land case takes 5 years to seven years, that a criminal case takes um um uh five, seven years right now. Right now, I'll tell you this. Um, I've seen in the case I'm in, but I've also seen it quite across the board that right now the government lawyers, the the uh state attorneys and the DPPs when they oppose bail, one of the arguments they make is give give him a speedy trial. You know, a speedy trial is supposed to be is supposed to be going for denial of bail. If they can't give you a speedy trial, if the judge says, "Ah, my diary is too big. I can't give you a speedy trial," then I give you bail. So, right now, if if if we can hurry up the trial, then really why? So Muzi and um others are are um acting judges in South Africa. In Uganda, we have a provision of our constitution, article 142, sub-article 2, which provides that where C provides that where the state of the business of the court so require—and for sure that then the president may—on the—the chief justice shall inform the judicial service commission that where the state of the business of the court so require, then the president shall, acting on the advice of the judicial service commission, appoint someone to act as a judge for a period specified in an instrument. So this is the the idea of article 142, 2, made in 1995 by those people who said we are we we do not want any form of exploitation of our people, and we're giving them this constitution, and what they said is let us have a situation where if the court is overwhelmed, if the state of the business of the court so requires, you can call upon members of the bar. Nicholas, also, what's your view on this provision of of the constitution? There are some people who think no, you shouldn't you shouldn't let some people prefer backlog. I mean we've had arguments, and there are people who prefer backlog, and I don't have to go into who they are, but uh what's what's your take on on article 142, 2 of the constitution?

So I was reading a couple of days ago on my on my trip back home from from my long journey—18 hours—for the third time a book by Okot p’Bitek, and Okot p’Bitek is known for many things, including his famous writings, the poems in *Song of Lawino*, but a less um talked about book of p’Bitek is a book he wrote and published really two weeks before his death. Uh, it was a compilation of essays, uh, you know, where he was talking about um, you know, the concept of, among other things, African conception of human rights, where he challenged western ideas about individual liberties and says that um no man is an island. You're born into a community; you are born into a family, and therefore rights must be

Conceived in that context. But one of the things he wrote in that book—the book is called *Artist and the Ruler*—was that he was really confronting a famous British writer who had said the artists were the rulers of the day because they were the brains of society. But Bitx expounds on that and says—and I won't quote here because I wrote it down—that I believe that a thought system of a people is created by the most powerful, sensitive, and imaginative minds that that society has produced. These are the few men and women, the supreme artists, the imaginative creators of their times.

I would want to think really that the framers of our constitution in 1995 were the imaginative minds of our times in so many ways. They were people who lived ahead of their times. Therefore, they saw that there would be circumstances such as that which we are in that would require extraordinary, bold steps to be able to confront those challenges. Those men were people who lived ahead of their times. Remember, Ellison, that the process of the enactment of the constitution involved a nationwide consultation that was undertaken for about two years. Everybody in this country, at least the vast majority, were consulted about what constitution they needed, and they all agreed on a constitution. The government set aside a different board, not the parliament of the Republic of Uganda. They set out a constituent assembly to discuss the constitution that was given to them as a draft by this commission. And you can agree with me that the quality of the people who participated in that discussion, if you compare them to the ones today, you wonder what kind of lawmakers we have. Some of the most outstanding men and women in this country. And they made for us a constitution that saw that in times to come there will be a need that offers flexibility to address these problems.

This constitution was amended four times by the seventh parliament in 2005 in an amendment that returned this country to a multi-party politics. It was amended again in 2015 by I think the eighth parliament in an amendment that saw the lifting of presidential time limits. It was amended in 2018. It was amended again in 2018 that saw the removal of the presidential age limit and the amendment of I think article 244 on minerals and rights in Uganda. Subsequent parliaments saw no wisdom in amending article 1422 because it was a necessary provision of the constitution. Really, if you ask me who I believe in, I am more inclined to believe in the wisdom of the framers of the constitution and subsequent parliaments that maintained, enacted, promulgated, and maintained the provision of article 1422 of the constitution as a necessary tool in our toolbox to be able to address emerging problems in the judicial system. I believe them. I trust them. I've seen one of them on these spaces. We owe them a duty of gratitude.

Only two provisions of our constitutions have not been tested to their fullest: the provision for a disaster preparedness commission and the provision for acting judges. People who dismiss this provision even before it is tried, I don't know what the basis of their dismissal is because every system, Ellison, is not perfect. There will be problems in any system because systems are implemented by human beings who are infallible. We all make mistakes. But it is no argument to say we should not invoke the provision of the constitution to address the circumstances that we face now.

I'm a very strong believer in mission-based judges because I think it will solve, not all of the problems of the justice system, but will go a long way in resolving the problem of case backlog in this country. And the people who are sitting on their hands and not invoking the provisions of this constitution, I think don't appreciate the magnitude of the problem that court users are facing because the problem of case backlog is a real, serious problem in this country. Mission-based judges can go a long way in resolving; appointing them can go a long way in resolving, in large part, the problem of case backlog. And so I do believe very strongly that the provision of article 1422 of the constitution must urgently be invoked, and we try that as an approach. The judiciary has tried many things in dealing with case backlog. They have not worked. We've tried small claims court in the belief that those courts can deal away with many cases whose values are below, you know, 10 million shillings, but case backlog is still here. The judiciary has tried mediation as a means of reducing case backlog. We have tried plea bargaining; it's not working. Maybe the bullet, the magic bullet that can push this now over the edge is going to be the question of appointing mission-based judges. It is necessary. It is urgent. And I think that those who are responsible for invoking this provision must do so now. And that's why I think the discussion around the service commission is really an important discussion, and we owe it to you, Ellison, for pointing us to a provision of the constitution that many people had not even paid attention to.

I think that as a matter of urgency, people who are in charge of this should invoke that provision. It has been invoked before, but really on a very small scale to address particular cases; it can now be invoked to address the pervasive and widespread problem of case backlog. So those who oppose this provision need to wake up from their slumber and confront the problems that we have; or in fact, if they have better solutions, let them propose it because opposing is great, but proposing is even greater. What solution do they have? We have said article 1422 can solve this problem in large parts, if not in its entirety. If you oppose it, well, you show us a better provision because I think that this is the provision of the constitution that needs to be invoked urgently.

And let me just, for purposes of completing my thought process, suggest to you other solutions to address this problem because I think there are also other low-lying fruits. I suggested at the beginning of this conversation that we have almost an autistic approach—and no offense to people who suffer from autism—but a person who suffers from autism focuses on a very small part of a big thing and just focuses on it. I think the approach we have had to the judicial system in this country is autistic in the sense that it has focused on a very small part of the judicial system because the judicial system is an ecosystem. You can appoint all the judges you want; if there are no investigators, criminal cases will take long in court. If the investigators don't have the tools they need, the people at the CID don't have the technological equipment that they need and the training that they need, criminal justice will still be delayed. You can have judges all you want; if you don't have prosecutors in the court system, you can appoint all the judges you want; the court system will not change. If you don't have state attorneys—I spent some time at the attorney general's chambers in Gulu. A young, wonderful lawyer called Elizabeth is doing a fantastic job there. But she has four attorneys dealing with four court circuits, four high court circuits. They now have the Pakwach High Court in Nebbi district. Our good friend and classmate Justice George Oundo is the resident judge there. You have the Gulu High Court which has two justices, Justice Philip Odoki and Justice Lillian Omar. Then there is the LRA high court that has I think two judges. Now you also now have the Kitgum High Court circuit headed by Justice Philip Odoki, your colleague, your former colleague from the ministry of justice. The young lady Elizabeth has four attorneys to deal with four court circuits and over seven judges. How will she be able to handle all these cases? And so let's deal with the ecosystem problem of the justice system and not only focus on appointing judges and building court buildings where there's no justice happening for people. I think on top of appointing mission-based judges, you have to deal with the other parts of the judiciary because a mission-based judge will be there, but there will be no prosecutor, there will be no state attorney. In some cases, judges line up and wait for prosecutors. There's one prosecutor in a court; there are four judicial officers, a judge and three magistrates. They have to line up before a judicial officer and wait for a prosecutor who is available. So a judge is in his court taking tea and waiting for a prosecutor, and prisoners are waiting in the cell. He cannot proceed. And so we have to deal with that problem as well.

The second thing that I think is important is that there are low-lying fruits. What I call system process reforms, okay, that don't require a lot of effort. Take, for instance, cases. You guys who do commercial cases, you have an appeal from a lower court. Okay? You want to stay the implementation of the decision of the lower court. In many places, by function of an appeal being filed, that decision is stayed. But here, he must file an application for an interim order, serve it, and get it heard; then you have an application for, sorry, for a temporary injunction. Then it is heard; it is determined. A decision is issued. Somebody might be satisfied; might seek for leave of court to appeal those decisions. Meanwhile, the main suit is still waiting. I think we can cut this process and make sure that by function of an appeal, if an appeal is properly filed, it should act as an automatic stay of the execution of the decision of the lower court because having all these multiple processes contributes significantly to case backlog. Okay, it's really something that you can deal with.

The second thing is this: Why do we have petty offenses that carry custodial sentences on our law books? Judicial officers send people on simple offenses to the prisons, further contributing to case backlog because once you get into prison—you guys are lucky you haven't been—I've had myself entangled in a criminal justice case when I was accused and arrested, and I met people in the jail, and I pray that every lawyer who doesn't appreciate this should get arrested, if only to experience it to learn, because I now have a 360-degree appreciation of the criminal justice system. Before that, I was only seeing it from one end. I met people in that place who are accused of petty offenses who are languishing in jail. Some of them have been there—the last that I spoke to were two teachers who were caught, I think, cutting trees in Mabira forest, and they had been there for three years because they couldn't pay a fine. They were in jail. So decriminalize petty offenses or at least provide for non-custodial and custodial sentences for petty offenses. If you do that, you really will deal with at least about 20% of cases pending in the criminal justice system. People are being sent to jail for being idle and disorderly, even though the court has now struck it down. But before that, you have so many people who are going to jail for being idle and disorderly, clogging the criminal justice system. You have, take for instance, the cases of return of bail money. Anybody who gets their bail money after being released or acquitted should really count themselves lucky. The process is much more difficult than the process of getting a doctor's recommendation for a C-section. I can tell you the truth. Even though I haven't given birth myself, I can tell you anybody seeking their return of their bail money must write to one person in this country. That person, if he took that job as a serious job, would do nothing else and be attending to processing the refund of bail money: the PS of the judiciary. So you can imagine people in Koboko must write to Kampala for the return of 10,000 shillings, 100,000 shillings for bail money. We can shorten this process. We have the tools. We can digitize these processes, and if we do so, we will deal with the question of backlog. And mission-based judges are great, but we have to look at the entire ecosystem. We must look at processes. Industrial complexes that have mastered processes are more productive. They can churn out products in record time because they have understood processes and are more efficient. Our judicial system is an analog system that still does not understand process efficiency and relies on procedural compliance in ways that undermine the justice process.

Take, for instance, the third one: case admissions. All of us as lawyers agree that there are many cases that should not be in that court but yet see the light of day in court, clogging the system. In many countries, there's a case admission criteria before your case is admitted, and it's an administrative process, and if you don't get past the hurdle, your case will not be admitted. In countries like the UK, if you're a frivolous and vexatious litigator—we know some of them, whose names I won't mention here—you have to seek the special permission of the high court judge to be able to file a case to ensure that the case that you are filing is not frivolous and vexacious. All of these things can be done if the people who are in charge of the court system or the judicial system appreciated these innovations that you have brought forth. Thank you. Thank you very much, Nicholas.

If you're just joining us, we are about, I think we have about 15 minutes to wind up our two-hour conversation. We had promised him one hour with Mr. Nicholas Opio. He has just told you that article 1422 is a necessary tool in our constitutional toolbox. He has told you that subsequent parliaments and the constituent assembly had the wisdom and foresight to bring this provision to light. And he has also said that the people in charge should make a decision. Of course, as Nicholas is aware, one of those people will very soon be me, after succeeding in a second endeavor. But maybe before I go to the next person, I'll just welcome everybody. Please, if you have questions, do not hesitate to type them in, and we shall put them to our guest. If you're just joining us, this is our usual Wednesday judicial service conversations, reggae conversations. And as you can hear, the drums of reggae are beating with wisdom from Mr. Nicholas Opio, and he's sounding it out as a re- from PB Tech himself, and the quote I really liked was "the imaginative minds," the court of imaginative minds, and one of our imaginative minds, Nicholas. But before we continue, I just want to encourage anyone who's listening, please ask any questions that you have right here; we answer questions by reflex action. We are steady; we are ready. And allow me to hand over to our friend Joy. Joy has been one of our frequent listeners, has hosted with us on many occasions, and she's here, Nicholas, to shoot the next question at you.

Thank you very much, and it's a privilege to be here, conversations. And thank you so much, Mr. Nicholas Opio, for the very insightful conversation, and especially on sharing the journey from where you started. And now the question that I have in regard to the rhythm and the dance of reggae: Pass me a joint. Oh yeah. Yeah. I just have two questions. Could you please walk us through the most defining high and low points of your career to date and how—sorry—and how they've shaped your professional journey? Because I've listened in from the start; you started in Gulu, the kind of life that was, and how you finally ended up in the career that—had it not been for the mercy of somebody, maybe you might not have made it here. So I'd like to know what might have been your highest and defining moments in your career, and then also what would you say to your younger self today? And this one I ask with a young lawyer in mind, considering the way the profession is—there are so many young lawyers at the entry level trying to find their footing, their sport, and maybe define themselves. So what would you say to them? More like what would you say to yourself at that start? And if you're feeling generous, you might also throw in for us some of the books, maybe one or two, that you would recommend for a young lawyer that might be looking at you as a mentor, as somebody they want to be when they grow up. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you very much, Joy. And just Nicholas, just before you answer, I've remembered that Nicholas was also a very good advocate for local content. You've heard that he was inspired by Anna Bosello but ended up following Robert Mugabe. So I think that's very good. And also on the question of books, please don't just recommend books for young lawyers. Law. I recently attended an event, and one of the guests was a very senior judge in the court of appeal, and so they asked us, "What are your life experiences? What has led you to where you are?" And I said, "Excuse me, I am also among the young to be asking this question." Well, well, well, well, well. Thank you very much, and thank you for those questions.

For me, really, there have been many defining moments in my life. None too important than the other. But I can tell you the first thing was the day I graduated from law school. I was a destitute child. So much so that no lady would even date me. I doubt even I would date myself. I really was a struggling student. I see my classmates, Emmanuella—those are the most generous people in my life—at moments when I was really destitute and poor, they shared their spaces with me. I'm grateful to my class of 2004 and my LDC class of 2005, people who saw something in me that I even myself doubted. So graduating from law school really for me was a very important moment. I cried because of my father's biological children. I was the first lawyer in the family. There were other professions; there were lawyers in our larger extended family, but of my father's real children that came from him and his many wives, I was the first lawyer. And so it was really a very proud moment for me. And I look back at those moments and just think sometimes that I'm very lucky, especially you know where I came from. It was really, really difficult circumstances getting out of law school, to be honest. Some of the people that I went to school with who are more brilliant than me never made it past secondary school. My desk mate in primary school was one of the last girls of the Aboke girls to come back; she was an exceptionally brilliant young lady. When we finished primary school in the SDA school in Gulu at Unified Primary School, she went to St. Mary's Aboke; I went to St. Jesus, and I was lucky. I survived abduction; she did not. She came back from the bush many years after being enslaved as a wife to an LRA commander. She didn't make it in life. She's back; she's struggling. My very own sister. And so for me, I was lucky. I viewed myself as exceedingly lucky in many ways. If I were a Christian, I would say I was blessed; I would claim the Holy Spirit, but in my view, really, it was extreme luck to be able to make it. And so my graduation day at law school was a very happy moment for me, but I've also had moments that are defining, and one of those very tough moments came in 2004. It is the reason I no longer take part in the elections of law society or offer myself for elections because I was leading a constitutional case that was very challenging, at the time very unpopular. It was the challenge against the country's anti-homosexuality act. Not many lawyers at the time would stand up for this kind of cause. But we took up this case because we believe that the law was unconstitutional. But as a result of taking that case, a large section of the law society—you'd think lawyers are wiser—led by Mr. Sekatawa, the Uganda Christian Lawyers Group, mounted a campaign against me in a way that was very vicious. And at that moment, I questioned why I was doing some of the things I was doing, why I was even a lawyer. My brother Ellison remembers, on the floor of the general assembly…

In, in how vicious some of the lawyers were on the floor of the assembly against me. Not because I had wronged them in any way, but because I was standing up for a cause that they opposed very dearly. Uh, that was a very, very difficult moment. I remember that decision was rendered on the 1st of August. It was, I think, a Friday, and I used to be invited regularly to a Christian radio station for a Saturday morning program on poor FM hosted by Rachel—Rachel, I forget her name now—Mayabel May and Enoch. It was dreadlocked Enoch and subsequently Joel and subsequently Jen. You can imagine, and I drove to that radio program a day after we had won our case in the constitutional court, and I went to the parking lot and I couldn't get out of my car because I was going to this radio station owned by these Christians who had mounted a vicious campaign against me as a person. Not because of the work I was doing, as me, for a very long time in my village, in my home, in Sunday sermons, my name was uh, being mentioned. And so that moment was really, really a difficult moment, but it taught me a couple of things. It taught me resilience. Uh, I believe then, now, that the mind is like body muscles. If you go to the gym and exercise it, it develops, becomes stronger. The same thing with me. I've developed resilience and overcome all these challenges, all these abuses, attacks on my family, attacks on my uh, mother, my father, uh, my siblings. Even in our own home, there were there was heated discussions. Some people disowned me for, for that cause. Uh, it is only at that moment that I appreciated my father for having many kids because there were many to go around. But people disowned me. So those were really difficult moments. But it taught me resilience. He taught me that if you believe dearly for a cause, even if you're the lone voice, you know, in that cause, uh, run it. If you believe in it dearly and you think you're right, uh, society might come around to a particular issue at some point. And I think that we have witnessed tremendous change of at least the tone in debate around that issue in this country. Um, and the fact that that debate is happening is healthy. At some point, we shall find our equilibrium as a country on that decision, and I'll be glad to have made my contribution uh, in that case.

Now I could share many other, but those were the two really very important uh, moments for me and and the lessons I got from them. To young lawyers, I can tell you—not only first to young lawyers, first young lawyers because that's a more argent agent and impressionable group—um, I can tell you, and and and the book that I'm reading now and I recommend anybody who is a lawyer to read is a book by Ken Roth, the former ED of Human Rights Watch, called *Writing Wrongs: Three Decades of Battling Frontline Abusive Governments*. It goes into the real tactics and strategies used by human rights organizations in confronting human rights violations in some of the most difficult times and places. I read that book. I've read, I'm reading it. Um, I'm bookmarking my, you know, you know, key moments, and at some point I'll share them. Um, and so learn that success in the law requires patience and the honing of your skills. I think it is foolhardy for a lawyer to open a law firm a year after leaving law school because you haven't understood the law, the practice of the law as a business, because it's a business. It really is a business, and the practice of the law as a business. If you don't understand it, then you are bound to fail. You're bound to fail or make lots of mistakes or delay your success. If you learn the business of the law, because the law is a business, law firms are just glorified shops and sell different products. The managing partner of the law firm is the shopkeeper; has to pay rent, has to bring in business, has to pay taxes, has to pay employees. So understand the business of the law. Seek mentorship from people who have been there, who are now doing these things, 'cause they are nuggets of wisdom that you never learn from law school. You learn them in practice. There is a heavy temptation now amongst many people to make it too quickly, uh, to make it too quickly. Some, some might be exceptional. They might make it, but the vast majority will require time and patience and perseverance and learning and mentorship.

Um, but to all lawyers, not just young lawyers, is the value of integrity. There are some lawyers in this town, if you hire them for your case, even the court knows you're guilty. You just want to get away from it. Seriously, they have a reputation for being fraudulent. If you see a pleading from them, you want to read it over and over again. The practice that they engaged in is really unethical. But that is a quick path to self-destruction because the market knows us all, watches us all. They will, they will, and eventually pick the chaff uh, and and and and and discard them. And so just integrity and hone your skills. If you do so, I believe verily that if you are the best at what you do—whether you're a sweeper, whether you're a court clerk, whether you're a commercial lawyer, a civil lawyer, a human rights lawyer—people will look for you and pay for your time. And so it is really important that you spend some time honing your skills, improving yourself. It is even more urgent because every year now we have 4,000 lawyers entering the market. The skills you had last year may become irrelevant this year. So improve yourself, learn the value of uh, of integrity and hard work. Many lawyers will tell you that we leave office sometimes after 10 p.m. Our families suffer because we put in the extra hour to be able to get ahead of the others. Lastly, keep yourself in good health. You will need it. You will need it. Okay. Keep yourself in good health spiritually, physically, and in all other ways. I have seen older lawyers now suffer in their older years because of self-neglect, unable to do the things that you would want to do. So take care of your health, uh, your mental health, your spiritual health, and just be healthy.

In terms of books, there are so many books. Unfortunately for me, I am uh, inclined to read more about human rights and civil rights movements. But the very first book that my father gave me in P4 is a book I've read countless times. I have it in audio copy. I have it in hard copy besides my bed, in my, on my desk at my, at my office. Is really a self-help book, and people don't like self-help books. It's a book called *How to Win Friends and Influence People* by Dale Carnegie. Dale Carnegie actually opened an institute in New York City to teach people the principles of success in life gleaned from countless examples of very successful people uh, all around the world. So for me, that is a really, really important book that I read over and over again. Uh, one of the verses—sorry, not the verses, I've just read the Bible, so my mind is—read the Bible too—is a quote in that book about good manners. Good manners are made of petty sacrifices. Sounds like simple. Sounds very simple, you know, like opening a door for your better off, offering a chair for somebody who has come into a room. Petty sacrifices is what makes good manners. And so that book for me is my guiding book in how to deal with people. It, it taught me humility. He taught me that you can succeed either as a lion or as, as, as, as a, as an Aena, because the Aena will follow you hoping your hand will fall off as you swing and walk; the lion will pounce. Okay. So depending on the tools at your disposal, uh, the tactics you choose to succeed, you know, are different. It taught me humility that there's just nothing more important than leaving people feeling respected, leaving people feeling valued even if you disagree. There are people that I disagree with intensely in this country, and we have some of the most difficult discussions. But you never find me calling them names and abusing them because I believe that uh, uh, engaging people in a way that is intellectually stimulating is a better way to convince them to join you. It is in the strength of your argument, not how vitriolic and acidic it is, that, that, that you'll win.

The second book that I read, and it is here on my, on my iPad that I keep reading, is a, is a very old book by a guy called Thomas E. Ricks, *Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement, 1954 to 1968*. The strategies and tactics I use in my human rights advocacy and litigation really are grounded in many ways on some of the tactics that this book has very, you know, carefully chronicled, that you approach this work almost like a military mindset. If you're in the army, the army does not go to war before preparing, before understanding, or at least trying to understand uh, the enemy formations, uh, understanding the enemy's strength. If you don't know what weapons the enemy has, really, you're going to war, you don't know what you might be bombed with. And so this book is very, very useful in my view in understanding that litigation as a practice, human rights movements as, as, as, as a, as a calling um, have certain things in ways that are really very informative and you can learn from these examples. For instance, it goes behind the preparations to the famous Birmingham March um, and and talks about the meetings they had, the strategies that they had, and the things they had to do to confront a very powerful white supremacist government uh, in the US at the time. So, that's a book that I think I'll recommend to anyone. But also, like humor, I like humor. And for me, the book on humor and being humorous is not the same uh, with uh, being funny. So people confuse the two. So some people try to be funny, but humor is really about wit and moment. And the book that I have read on humor is a book by a guy called James Allen. James Allen was a corporate lawyer in Silicon Valley uh, working with some of the biggest uh, tech companies in Silicon Valley. But he resigned his, his legal job to become what he called—he calls—a humor consultant and wrote a book called *As a Man Thinketh*. *As a Man Thinketh*, it's just how you can use humor, good humor, uh, not crush humor, to be able to succeed in the corporate space, in the boardroom, in life. Um, it is really a book that I like.

Uh, the last book that I read a couple of months ago because of the nature of my work is a book by um, a Princeton professor um, who is a dear friend, uh, S. Gariv, talks about *Spin Dictators: The Changing Face of Tyranny in the 21st Century*. The, this you can read this book alongside a book called *Technofudalism* by the former Greek finance minister whose name I can't pronounce in my heavy lower tongue, but it's called *Technofudalism*, um, um, uh, and another book by uh, a Stanford professor on how America has weaponized the global infrastructure uh, to rule the world. So these books uh, really for me are the books that I have read. There's a long list of books that I like, including some that I've taken part in writing. There's one that just came out on AI and peaceful assemblies. Um, I was part of the team that put the book together; it's still fresh off of, off of, off, off the print. Uh, if you have access, please uh, look it up. I am very, I'm very grateful that Joy didn't ask me for books after the um, uh, display, but there, there are two more if I may add, if I may, Jo, if I may; this is, this is dear to me, these are very old books that uh, so John Stuart Mill is a philosopher, many, many lawyers would know. He has a book called *On Liberty*, that is a bible for human rights, really a book that was written many, many years ago, has been a central guiding book on uh, on human rights. The last one is written by a lady who is believed to be a mistress of John Stuart Mill, called *The Vindication of the Rights of Women*. *The Vindication of the Rights of Women* by Mary Wollstonecraft. Fantastic books. Uh, if you read it, you will really uh, I think have a very, very good day. Okay.

Um, thank you. Um, thank you. We are about to wind down. Um, I think there are two questions. I'm going to just read one. Um, we'll see. Um, from Latigo, Latigo RK, who says, "Ellison, what's my OBO's take on Kenya's recent move to appoint magistrates with prior legal practice experience? We've had some dreadful experiences here in Uganda. Could this be the corrective path we need too?" So in Kenya, they have, I think there's now a limit. You can't just become a magistrate straight out of law school. There's now some experience limits. I think that's what he's talking about. And just before you take that, um, we'll also be um, taking a question from Mr. Adit Mark Raymon um, uh, in just under a sentence. Mark. Mark is a regular listener, a very strong supporter of our rea movement. He's a um, he's a, he's a climate activist. Of course, Mark and I agree very strongly on the need to build the eco pipeline. That is a joke. We don't, we don't necessarily agree on that. I think he's, he was one of the activists on the other side of that debate, but he's been a very strong supporter of ours. And Mark, if you could just do a question. Um, most likely it's about climate, but let us hear him. Thank you.

Thank you, Nicholas. Uh, I'll go straight to my question. Uh, Nicholas, the question is like, "What is the impact of the recent conflict among civil society and human rights activists groups in Uganda that are driven by the competition for donor funding, because you've seen other people accusing each other of personal relationships, kind of that, uh, the people seeking justice? Why you have proposed several recommendations or alternatives to Article 42 to address barriers to justice. Don't you think that these internal disputes among activists also pose a significant barrier to accessing justice?" Thank you so much. You should not have allowed Mark to, to ask questions. Good. Now, I just, I was just saying you shouldn't have allowed Mark to ask questions. He's uh, throwing a stone in the beehive. But, but I'll respond to you, Mark. Thank you for, thank you for your question. Uh, let me start with uh, my brother and Obi Latigo. Latigo and I, we have a small group of uh, friends. We like to bounce ideas—Jasper, John Musim—and some of these ideas, ideas you've, we've discussed before, and I'll tell you this that I appeared before a judge in Fort Portal, and clearly the judge was not uh, uh, well-versed in civil procedure. He had just been appointed. So I sought his indulgence to meet in chambers to discuss this issue with him. And so I went to him, and he laughed. He was a good friend, actually. He says, "I spent all my life stamping birth certificates, now I'm here, I have to be, I'm learning also on the job." Right. The point is that judicial duty is a serious issue. I met one who had spent all their life in URA, again struggling with simple procedural issues before a court. Those things to me pointed to two things: First is that a person may be qualified as a lawyer, and once you appoint them on the bench, you must prepare them to be judges. Many of them don't know how to write judgments. You saw an embarrassing judgment from Mukono the other day from a high court judge. My proposal is that if you must appoint people, first appoint people with significant courtroom experience to the bench. They make better judges because they understand the courtroom more than any other lawyer who has been practicing law outside court. If you must appoint a lawyer who has been practicing law outside court to the bench, do what is done in Rwanda. The judiciary is a career. They take two years at the legal training institute in I think Nzaza or Butare, being trained in how to be judges or magistrates. So they appoint people straight out of law school to magistrates, sometimes even judges. They appoint people who are, you know, in politics, but before you actually sit in your first courtroom as a judge or a judicial officer, you have undergone extensive training; you know how to evaluate evidence. This practice of regurgitating lawyers' submissions and then in, in two pages or two paragraphs saying, "This is my decision," is unacceptable. It really is unacceptable, and I think that that can be ameliorated by the requirement to have people with extensive courtroom experience who understand the law, understand legal practice, or if you must appoint from outside legal practice, uh, make sure that you have people uh, undergo extensive training, at minimum two, two years to understand how to be a judge. Many of them don't even understand the etiquette of being a judge. Um, and and it is really, really difficult to deal with that kind of lot on the bench. And so those would be my response to my brother Latigo, that if we do that, um, and is the reason really partly why I think mission-based judges will be better if you pick them from the Law Society. I've heard you call them the RA, the reserve force of the Law Society. They will make better judges in the short time that they will decide cases because they have courtroom experience. If you appear before a judge with courtroom experience, some of the antics and the, the games some lawyers play, they will know it. I'll give you an example. Um, if you go to the Commercial Court with Justice Ocaya, the things you want to do are things he may have done them when he was in practice. So, he understands your game. He will catch you right up and put you to order. So, I think that those would be really the things that we have to do.

Mark, your question is very difficult to answer because I have to speak very candidly about some friends in civil society who I think are petty, really very petty, uh, because there's so much work to go around. There's so much issues, there are so many issues to deal with. I don't know where they find the time to be embroiled in personal disputes uh, and petty relationships. Uh, my view is that they are very petty. Perhaps that's the reason the civil society, the state of civil society in Uganda, it is what it is—a product of internal implosion. I have witnessed cases of deep corruption in civil society. And when we spoke about it, we really got into trouble um, with our colleagues. But there are cases of deep corruption. If you want to understand the extent of this, follow four cases right now that are going on in the High Court: civil society leaders and the organization sued by the Danish government in the High Court because of misappropriation of funds. And so these kind of issues are petty. They undermine your efforts, and in many cases deny the beneficiaries of services you offer because, like it or not, the Ugandan state doesn't have a legal aid policy or fund. The bulk of legal aid work in large parts of this country is being done by civil society who offer legal representation to people who would otherwise not have lawyers. The things that are being done by people at justice centers, for instance, in the High Courts across this country—one of your good friends, uh, in my, in my part of the world we call him Betij, Aaron Bet Aaron, he hosted him here. He's uh, he's the leader of that, of that institution. The work that they're doing, there's so much work that if you focus on that work, you have no time for this pettiness. You have no time. If you value that work, you have no time for engaging yourself in unscrupulous uh, activities. Either intentionally or unintentionally, their actions have consequences on the people that they serve. And many of them are people who are seeking to access justice. If you go to FIDA and see the number of people who walk in there, imagine if they were embroiled in some sort of petty dispute. Um, but, but lastly, just to say, and I'm speaking really in broad brushes here without naming names or going into the granular details of some of the incidences. If you really think about it, if you think about it, many of the people involved in this kind of thing are people who came to this space for the wrong reason. That's why you have leaders in civil society organizations who don't want to leave those organizations because it's also livelihood for them. It's not a cause. Okay? If you think you're building a public institution using private sector resources, you have to be able to appreciate the fact that you are involved in a cause bigger than yourself. And it's not about yourself. There are…

Many people who are engaged in actions that seek to draw attention to themselves as opposed to the cause of their clients or the organizations that they champion. So, eventually, uh, the market will sort out those people. There have been many that have come before them and eventually have no space.

The allure of instant gratification, really inspired by social media, is um the biggest problem many people find themselves in—that you're working for clicks. How many views you have on social media? Popular opinion, instant gratification. Difficult issues take time to crystallize. Difficult issues require application of self and mind, the respect of others involved in that space, and if you do that, I think all will be well. I hope I've answered your question without uh the sensational details that I may have about uh my colleagues. And I have finished. You know, you thought you'd be here for 1 hour and a half, but I think there are those requested for 3 hours and was making us to extend almost 2 now 4 hours. But I've always been inspired by you, but again now I think I'm more inspired now looking at him. I'm like maybe even me after 20 years in fact be standing in his shoes. For the books, madame said he missed out on the list of the books, maybe we list them for others who missed out on them.

Then there is someone on the call—it's called Sheila—mention the other name when you're mentioning or addressing case backlog judges. You make a point extending to state attorney that recently she was at court in the state and the officer were justing cases—that it's not about only the officers alone but in the same process is because you feel someone saying in person, maybe having another. I think should be broader. I don't know whether they're about to start asking for mission-based state attorney as well. Yeah. So maybe now for when you think of mission-based judges, there are those who are against it, and those against it what they thought most about is judicial independence. So they argue that this judges risk weakening judicial independence, and without independence we can't really have justice. So maybe I want to have your take. You as well see a danger—do you see that as a danger of independence you use your toade based judges, or it's just a manageable problem if we could manage and have based judges? I think that's my last question, and you don't have other questions from the audience. Some are already just suggesting for us to extend, but just one thing I noted—um, one of the comments is about the translation of a constitution. I'm wondering is that something that can be put in the pipeline? Will it improve access to justice? Would more people be aware of their rights if they can read in their local languages? Well, thank you. Thank you, Marci. And uh my brother Maka, let me start with the last one.

I am one of those who—and I give you an example—I appeared before the high court judge in Gulu, uh Justice Philip Odoki. There was a case we were doing. There was a witness who was an illiterate person who needed translation. The judges are Acholi. The plaintiff's lawyer is from the north. The defense lawyer is from the north. We all understand, right? But we still have to go through this laborious process of speaking to each other in English through a translator. Think about that. I think that just beyond translation of the constitution, we must, I think in many ways and in where we can, uh begin to think about these processes in local Ugandan terms. The law society president call it calls it the colonization. We must really rid ourselves of the yoke of colonization. In cases where it's appropriate, really use the language of of of the natives. We understand them. We know them. In that case, a case that could have taken us one day to complete or to go through six witnesses is now taking us more than 6 months, and we are still on the third witness. We're on the third witness. So, I'm a big proponent of where circumstances permit the use of indigenous languages in ways that make people relate to a court process. Um and in our case was even made worse because our translator was a Lang whose grasp of the language was really questionable, and many times we have had we we had to correct him and say, "No, no, no, that is not what I said," and so we have to, if where we can, um uh use local languages and processes, and that goes further to interpretation of the laws. We must then—the constitution provides that we must interpret it in local languages. The law reform commission that is mandated to do this uh has only begun doing this in the last couple of years, and not many people even have uh the constitution in their local language. They have no idea about chapter 4. You'll be surprised—some of them are educated people—uh, and they have no idea, and yet the bible which is widely translated in local languages is widely read in villages. It is one of the most treasured books by old people in the village. Not just because of the breadth of this literature uh and how rich the language is, but because they can relate to the extent that they even translated biblical names. Peter is Petero—Petero—because people understand Peter because it is in their language, and so translation will help to enhance access to justice for many people. So decolonizing the court system uh to the extent that we can to allow people to be able to understand uh judicial processes to those who oppose mission-based charges. I can only take you seriously if you offer an alternative to the problem. If you don't have an alternative to the problem, I think the framers of our constitution were a lot wiser than you are. I can tell you that because I know some of the people who framed this constitution—that the people who were involved in the consultations that led to the drafting of the constitution are all wiser than you are. Judicial independence is not a function of of anything alien. It's really about individual discretions largely and the conduct of a person in the conduct of the matter. And I think the suggestion is not being made that you appoint mission-based judges in mass and without regulation. It would be folly to do that. I think the suggestion being made is that the idea of mission-based judgment or so judges is a good idea. What we need then to hone in to say, "Okay, how do we do this? How do we make this work? How do we ensure against conflict of interest against bias? How do you ensure quality?" And I think regulations uh uh and appropriate sanctions can be applied in ways that will limit any weakness that that system might offer. Um I think that uh the clamor for judicial independence must not make us lose hope in the brilliant idea that has the potential of resolving a large part of the problems in our judicial system, especially on the case uh case backlog. On the list of books. Um, I never think of myself in the realm of President Obama to do a reading list every year, but I I will I will make a reading list and and share it with uh uh uh of these spaces uh to be able to share with people. Some people might find uh some of the books interesting. Um but um just to close on on on issues of books uh read PB Tech's Song of Lino. It's a brilliant dialogue between Clementine, the educated wife of Beek and Law, the traditional wife of Beek, and some of the most beautiful and memorous lines. And I can just give you one—when Lino was lamenting how her husband had changed after he came back from school and he says, "Books have beaten the testicles of my husband." How can you really really really not miss out the depth of that expression? Uh so read Song of Love, you know, if you must read any other book. Thank you. There's just one question from the audience, Mr. Mira, and ask you a question. I think in a minute or two we have overshot—we stop here, and I think there are many people on the call may want to rest.

No, I have to go to see for the talk showing and Nicholas. My name is Kenneth Mur. I have I have a comment and I also have I think about two questions. The comment and I'd love to read it. Va team is uh he says frivolous cases frivolous Ellison—what's my—I leave that my OBO's take on Kenya's recent move to appoint magistrates with prior legal practice experience. We have we have had some dreadful experiences here in Uganda. Could this be the corrective path we need to—so Nicholas we put an answer to that? And then the other comment was relating to I think what Alfred mentioned. He says now it's not about actually um we may also need mission-based state attorney. Looking at that is that we've had scenarios where matters are being adjourned simply because the there's no state attorney or the state attorney is absent because I don't know whether it's just about the appointing authority determining how many state mag state are supposed to be stationed at specific magistrate courts or even high courts because I don't have we don't I I I don't know why we would have to have a journey matter simply because the state Anton is not available. Can't we have more than one or two or even three at a specific court to avoid that? Justice largely because um my question is why why do we have criminal sessions anyway? And in criminal and civil matters interchangeably, you know, chief magistrates, we have to wait for civil sessions that come almost once or even twice if you're lucky. Yeah. Most of the thing most of these uh uh most of these are what is causing you know justice delays. Someone is remanded to you know forever until the next criminal session if you're lucky. So you know, out leaving their sentences depending on the charges or crimes they are charged. So you say on the on those do we have you know do we have to have criminal sessions? Can't we interchange and have them concurrently or have specific days to avoid the delays? Over to you.

Okay. Thank you so much, Kell. I think um we had asked the question from Latigo which you read out. I think it had been asked and and and and answered, and maybe Nicholas will go into that. We will not be taking any further questions. Um this will be the last answer, and Nicholas is very generous. He's expected—if I recall today is Wednesday—so he should be expected on UBC behind the headlines—a much smaller of course group of people that I think we we want him to reach there with some energy. Um well, thank you, thank you very much for for your questions. Um on state attorneys, I think I made a a comment earlier um about the ecosystem of the judicial you know uh system—that you cannot appoint judges alone without addressing the question of shortage of attorneys uh from the ages chambers and DPP. You've got to also take care of that because you appoint judges—even if you appoint mission-based judges—they will need attorneys in those courts uh and they are short in numbers. The DPP has been making the case for the appointment of more attorneys. I hope they can do that. The other way to deal with this is uh private prosecutions. I think the DPP has been standing in its way by stamping private prosecution, taking them over and discontinuing them. In fact, they should encourage them in cases where litigants can have private attorneys on private briefs to prosecute this case. The DPP that is burdened with u uh not the person—the director—burdened with case backlog should be very happy to hand over these cases to people to to prosecute. I'm glad that they have now established a small—I don't know if it's a directorate but a desk—with attorneys uh to deal with the question of private prosecution. I think it's headed by Timothy Amirit. Uh I hope that establishment can help the growth of private prosecutions in ways that will help them to deal with the heavy burden that prosecutors have to carry every day. Imagine a prosecutor coming to court to prosecute cases with 10 files before a judge. It's either inefficient or will not do any other work. On top of that, those files, he has to go back and peruse fresh files from police. He has to go back and uh and and sanction charges. No wonder charges are sanctioned just in a peremptory manner because they are burdened. I think that private prosecutions have to be encouraged, and there have been instances where people have been appointed to prosecute cases. I remember when the DPP staff were on strike. Our good friend Marco Dong was appointed. He's a policeman—was appointed to prosecute a case before Buganda Magistrate court. I think it was a case against Dr. Kizj. It is possible for the DPP to appoint uh people to prosecute cases privately. It is also possible for them to encourage the growth of private prosecution as a way of dealing with the case backlog. But more importantly, I think the duty is on the state that is flooding us with judges and magistrates to understand that that is um perhaps an exercise in futility unless you deal with the other aspects of the justice system, um uh and and and make sure that they work and they have the numbers to correspond to the numbers of courts that are being established. Um on criminal sessions, I have argued that criminal sessions is judicial corruption because judges look forward to criminal sessions. They will abandon the conduct of daily cases in court to attend to a session in the pretext that sessions are helping them deal with backlog. The duty of the court is to sit continuously every day to hear cases. I think the judiciary can do that and I think should do that. So much much money is wasted or is spent—let's not say wasted—on criminal sessions where judges look forward to it. They even ask for money. They beg for money to go for criminal session. We spend so much money that might be equal to that judge's salary for 6 months to hear 30 cases. I think for me that is u it's a corrupt practice—an inefficient judicial system—and I I think somebody who appeared on your show suggested the creation of specialized court systems—that the judge is appointed—I think it was Oello—or that you you have a criminal criminal court—you appointed you know that you're a criminal court judge—you're an immigration judge—that is what you do—but in in in this country we don't have that—we have general practitioners who handle—in one day they're handling cases of fights over bario grounds. On the other day there are cases of breach of contracts to labor disputes. The breadth of knowledge you have to have to do that is incredible. And I I doubt all of us—many of us—have that breadth of knowledge. Okay. If you're just if you're just joining us on the on our judicial service conversations—are regular discussions. We have been pleased and honored to host Mr. Nicholas Opio, and Nicholas, just on that last point of yours—I think section 18 of the judicature act provides that sittings of the court um subject to the rules and such number of judges as may be requisite, but that the having regard to the business to be disposed of shall so far as is practicable and subject to vacations sit continuously for the trial of civil and criminal matters. So it's already in the law that we must really have continuity and and a criminal division that sits every day. We apologize to those who are still trying to speak. We are not able to take any more questions. Uh, I think we'll just have one last question, which are your closing remarks, Nicholas, and then I will take the liberty of closing on behalf of my co-hosts and also giving you guys a song.

I'm sure you like me say that I am grateful for the opportunity to um join you this evening. I thank those who have joined in. I hope that my uh uh remarks uh gave you some new perspectives. Uh it would be interesting to hear your feedback. Um um I'm happy to come back. I'm happy to uh you know do this again because I think it's a useful endeavor for uh the law society and for the country. I hope that uh you elect Ellison as the law society rep to the service commission. I I can vouch for his character and his person, and I can commit that we will hold his feet to the fire to do the thing that he's promising. And if it is li politician, we shall recall him. But let me close with a verse in verse in the Quran. Uh one of the most beautiful books uh very poetic. I want to quote verse 135 of Surah al-Nissa—the woman—and and to say I got this verse really from uh my time at the Harvard Law School. This post is plastered on the entrance of the Harvard Law School, uh, one of the premier law schools around the world because it's really important. The main entrance of the Harvard Law School dedicated a whole space for this quote. And I may not speak in Shakespearean English, but is written that way. Let me read. "All you who believe, stand out firmly for justice as witnesses to Allah, even against yourselves or your parents or your king, and whether it is against the rich or the poor, for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts of your hearts, lest ye swerve. And if ye distort justice or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well acquainted with all that ye do." If you take any of us, let this be your guiding light uh in the pursuit for justice for everybody in this country. Let our court systems be the sanctuary we all run to to seek justice in a speedy, fair and just manner. I thank you. Have a good evening. Have a good morning and a good night. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Nicholas. Um, thank you very much. Um, thank you. Thank you for that very powerful verse from the holy Quran. When you talked about Harvard, I remembered a colleague of mine, M the son of Lyola, Mr. Finan—Finan—went to Harvard, but unfortunately he went to Harvard during COVID. So, so he was walked down in campa—they were doing—they were doing online classes for his masters. So, so the first time he stepped in was doing graduation. So, so it was a very good experience for him. So I'm sure he didn't see that bus. But now there's a bus—the main entrance of the law school—entrance of the law school—which we're not showing you on Zoom. And now I think for those who who who've joined us, thank you so much. We are honored and privileged. But to Nicholas, we are extremely grateful to you for your time. We know you're very busy. We know you're heading to discuss national matters um with the national broadcaster and um in a few minutes, and so we thank you so much for your time for us on the regular conversations and the judicial deliberations. This conversation has been one of the finest we've had, and we are very grateful to you for the depth, for the gravitas, and for the seriousness that you have um given to this topic. We are also very grateful for the opportunity that we all have to continue discussing. Um uh we've been telling the lawyers that very soon they will have an election. I don't want to say it again because you said you're going to hold my feet to fire, but uh that you're going to hold my feet, but uh I think it's fair to say that we've had a fantastic conversation. I think it's also fair to say this—that the desire of the people of this country is to have justice—to have justice—and that we must have justice done, and there can be no justice with backlog and delay, and so we shall continue every Wednesday to push the judicial service conversations. See you next Wednesday, same place, same time. Fighting for the cause of justice. And when we fight for it, you'll remember that wonderful Africa song. I have to run to UBC, guys. But thank you.