The Pursuit of Justice in Africa: Reflections from the South

Done that in defense of resistance, in the memory of the resistance, and the right to sing of the story of the African people of southern Africa without shaming those people. He is an author of a book, *Odyssey of liberation*, a memoir of a rebel advocate.

I must tell you, Dr., that uh, in Uganda, the terms rebel, the terms rebels for the legal profession are very—it's a word that has gained a lot of significance in the last few months. Also, the idea of the legal rebel is an idea that has gained a lot of significance. Also, the idea of decolonization has gained a lot of significance in the last few months. And so you come at a time of great relevance, and um, and and we are truly humbled that a person who who has so who doesn't have time, who sits as a judge, who has a lot of cases not only in the political South Africa, you've also been a commercial arbitrator, and I think you are still one of South Africa's leading commercial arbitrators. So, as for the for your seniority and for your time, we are truly and absolutely humbled.

With you right now is an audience of Ugandan lawyers. I must particularly salute Mr. Ali Seekatawa, who I'll be giving a microphone later on. Mr. Seekatawa is the one who who who really um told us about you and about your book and really pushed for us to have you on, and I I thank you, Ali, and I really salute you. But I must also say we have a number of people who are on this space. The audience you're addressing is an audience of lawyers mainly. There are very many lawyers, but also very many non-lawyers. I can see even professors. I can see professors from the from the university are are also on, and um, as a starting point, maybe just before we hear from you, doctor, I will ask uh Mr. Seatau—I think he's on—I will ask Mr. Seca to just say a word, and then I'll come to you, to you, doctor.

Ali, please unmute and and then just say oh uh introduction. Thank you for hosting Dr. Mi. Um, colleagues, I have read the history of South Africa, particularly as you all know this site in the east. We relate to South Africa on two major events. One was the Mongi migration in the 19th century, where our brothers left South Africa after the Shatazuru and so on and migrated east. You know, as you move up up to here, most of us in a way to that history of Shakazuru and all that have an attachment, a node attachment to South Africa from the second for the liberation of South Africa and a a first, you know, party uh indigenous party in Africa. Now, as followers of you all know that as said even the fighters for uh where in Uganda in the early 1990s and 18 89, and I think some of us were old enough, some of them were actually in our schools, some of the children of that revolution, and we know Dr. Muzi is one of the fighters of that period. I don't know whether he got opportunity to come and train in Uganda here in [Applause] Kawi Ed for your information. His second his second name is and it means we start and finish what we start. In simple terms, you must complete whatever you have started. Inspiring, especially the fact that his background, you know, low levels of high levels of poverty and his dedication, and I wanted to read this to you. He dedicates it to every African child and adult born into the margins of the human condition and whose lives are a perpetual dehumanized as if they are not worthy of inhabiting this earth. Many of us I would say relate to this story from where we have come from here in Uganda, and it's many of our African because there's also an intersection between the role of missionaries and colonial conquest um which happened in South Africa and it happened in um Uganda. I think a known missionary, Alfred I think it's Alfred Taka um played the role played by many missionaries here, so that our law has developed—if you call it development—from that colonial context of these two countries, and um and and so I'm going to talk about law in that context because in South Africa and in Africa as a whole, until we've touched the very sources of our law which has a which are colonial in nature, and if it's colonial in nature, therefore it was designed for colonial conquest. And so anyway, coming back to me, I think I do say in the book I'm a rural boy. I I I grew up in rural areas, abject poverty in what is now known as Guazulu Natal. And I've also grown up later in my life during the struggle in so I was happy that the song was about so because I also consider myself a so boy, and I'm a originally a student leader in the 80s, an activist, a teacher, a lecturer, and I came to law because as you all know, law, at least when we are far from it, is something that we think is designed to change society, means it's dynamic, and I and I had tried to be a priest, but that we will leave aside because it was my concern all the time that we need to find a way for Africa to develop its own.

And so when I became a lawyer after being a teacher, a lecturer, a political advisor, one of the things that I thought South Africa has not done since independence is to dewesternize its knowledge systems, to dewesternize the notions of law, to dewesternize the ways of seeing and ways of being, and to dewesternize everything else we've assimilated ourselves into. And by that I'm not suggesting abolitionism, that we must reject everything we know. But I'm a lawyer now and disappointed a little about lawyers because when we are law students, we usually activists, but that activism hardly outlasts graduation. And so law in South Africa, as it is in all postcolonial or let's say colonially once colonially controlled states, tends to remain the same as if Africans were sleeping when the colonizers came and therefore had no systems. And so my context of the law is that it has to be steeped in Africa's agenda of liberating its people. And so I dispute the notion of the neutrality of law, the positivist approach that we are taught because nothing is not political. And so when I represent people, I also subscribe to the notion that justice is not the exclusive preserve of people we like or people we agree with. And so I've had experiences in South Africa in all the cases that you mentioned and many more. But let me zoom in into this Zuma watch because it tends to be known, and it's for someone who's vilified and and um sometimes the notion that he is vilified um affects lawyers and how they choose to represent people. But for me it was not just my what I call my obsession with the underdog because there is that obsession on my part. It was also because I think law tends to be used in postcolonial states and post-apartheid state in particular as the extension of colonial rule, and inhabitants of the African continent hardly confront this question because we are uncritical of the law. Uh, we uncritical of well sometimes not even uncritical, we seem unable to imagine ourselves without western notions of the law. We've not been able to think of ourselves as worthy human beings, worthy intellectuals born of heroes of this continent that developed structures in society, so we tend to fall into the trap of thinking that our being, our whole being and our systemization of society only came with colonizers. We knew nothing, which is a notion I dispute. So my representation of people is in that context as a lawyer. But of course, one faces difficult things because in South Africa we had a classes that are manned classes, white classes, and if they are not white it's Africans who are aligned to those manned classes. And so my representation of him faced that. And in every case that I've done for him and others was practically to indicate to society, to judges, to young lawyers that justice is not the exclusive preserve of certain people and people we like. And that has happened in many cases that I've done. M and my idea of the law is that whether you are in Uganda, Nigeria, in West Africa or Ghana on the southern tip where we are, we are combined by one thing, and it's the intersectionality of the problems that were left by the colonial experiences, and those colonial realities remain in our law, and and one of the challenges I keep making to the judges, to the students and everybody is our ability to imagine ourselves as knowatable people born on the continent where there were knowledge systems. We are not creatures of western knowledge. We are victims of western knowledge, and and and our role must be to go back and read classes prejud—I mean um privilege classes, then we've not done enough, and this calls on us to challenge the rules, to redesign the law, to dig deep into Africa's own dispute resolution mechanism, to question our love for the wig and the gown, the attire that we lose. I'm not suggesting no attire at all, to question our affinity to western notions of what a lawyer is and think about law that would take out the African child from misery and dependence. I let me end it there for now and uh take different questions on the specific cases about the judiciary if there are any.

Yes. Yes. I think we have a number of specific cases, but if you could just um contextualize for us um what the Jacob Zuma cases were about because a lot of people here from from our vantage point, we simply saw the the the the riot and how that um representation of, for example, a former president um ties in with the idea of of representing the downtrodden. And I like the quotes, the law must not be a servant of privilege. And um would someone not argue that um the president was the epitome of of privilege? It depends. He was not well he was not president when I represented him, by the way. He had just been let me say kicked out in loose language. And you write a a person who is a former president or president literally seems powerful and in relative to an ordinary person is powerful. But relative to power in society, to who controls the narrative, who controls who we see as bad in society, who controls who we must dislike. It doesn't matter whether you are president or the pope. When you don't control the narrative in the media, what I call the the the tussle for mind share, who controls the minds of people, what they think, what they like, what they dislike, what they see as superior. I think he was he became a victim at that point, a victim of a very powerful system. H and I was my defense. His case originally h comes from what was called the arms deal where he was first accused of taking a bribe from a friend called Shabir Shik. So that's the the the first thing, and of course he was an MEC, which is like a minister in a province when that happened, not in the national cabinet, and that case developed, and while it was developing he was again charged with another case—I was not involved in that one—the rape case, which of which he was acquitted, but the one about his fraud and racketeering case and corruption case has been running since then for two decades now, and it it never ends. I no longer represent him. Eventually I had to move on because I was fatigued. We're still very close, but you get fatigued, and he became the boogeyman in my view of post-apartheid South Africa, the boogeymen as I think you have in your countries. There are people who just become scapegoats for everything that's wrong in the country. And so I was not representing him because of anything else except that whatever people think of him or any human being, they deserve justice and defense. And then there was a case which was the the Zondo commission, and I represented him in that too, which of course, and I've said this in the book and I continue to say it and I believe it was a grand scapegoating shm in the history of South African politics where people be together in the struggle, as it always happens, are tend against each other to a point where they they devour one another, and I think it was a battle that was designed to project certain groups of people as more corrupt than others. And I represented him there because there was no evidence, and he was being dragged into that commission yet again. Um, so that you you destroy everything that you think he represents. And and as an African lawyer, it's also very important to be a bit familiar with the political dynamics of your clients and and what they are defending and why they are being accused. And so in a way those cases for me, sometimes I would know that he would lose and that we would lose. But those cases were important because you also want society to see for itself the weaknesses of a justice system when it hates somebody and our inability, even postcolonial state, to understand what equality before the law should be, to understand the nature of justice that as I always say this and I say it in the book, know the people who need justice most are not our friends. It's actually people we despise because our friends always get justice from us. The test for justice is how we deal with people that we despise or dislike. That's your test. Do you put them through a just process? And that is the the cases that I've done for him. And um and I think we were able to show to South Africans what the weaknesses in the system are. And eventually when he did not go um to appear before the commission having asked for a recusal, he was sent to jail. Our constitution says you can't incarceration must happen after a trial. Only apartheid detained people without a trial. President Zuma is probably the only person in post-apartheid South Africa who was detained for months without a trial, and that's the depth of the injustice, but I was happy about it because it brought up to society that we too who fought against oppression, against colonialism, when we have power we can abuse it and abuse it to fight smaller battles elves and seek validation and crumbles that fall from the master's table and turn against our own to the exclusion of everything else we fought for. And for me that was as tragic as it was that this old man who's 80 years old was sent straight to prison without a trial was the lesson that I thought was necessary for society to reflect about itself. And he continues with that case um the criminal trace—a colleague of mine advocating both who's a friend of mine um on the same floor with me here continues to represent him—um and I think eventually the state has spent more than it's trying to recover, by the way. It's not because he stole money, the charges that the the friend of gave him money and that money was a bribe, it was 500,000 rand seemingly over time, and it calculates even things like transport to school, pizzas bought for his children by this friend. All of those are separate counts and curry that was bought by this friend to send to children or money that friend bought for I mean gave to his children. So for me I was not rep I don't represent people only because they are going to win. Sometimes I do so in a losing case just to to be able to show the pitfalls of the system uh for people to judge for themselves whether postcolonial post-apartheid South Africa is what they fought for and whether the African person in the world in the globe in global politics and global justice matters, and I think that's the question for me is that Africans and postcolonial states have not realized that in the broader scheme of things. Uh, we live in what I call neocolonial realities because knowledge is still western. Our likes and dislikes are still western, and those who control natural resources and economies in our country determine what we know, what we like, who we like, and all the grand narratives. And that was the case. H and it continues, and I hope um one day because it challenges our judges too. You know, I think judges in postcolonial states must think seriously about the notion their ro because it's very easy for judges, depending on how you appoint them. It's very easy for judges to end up being servants of ruling elites in society. And those ruling elites may well be remnants of the very thing that colonized us. And I think law is nothing if it's not liberatory. And you said to me about rebel. I think every lawyer should be a rebel because rebel means questioning critically and radically what oppresses society in front of you. It doesn't mean conformity. A rebel is someone who's not afraid h to venture into truths that are not told. H maybe not truths, but to challenge weaknesses that they see in society without fear or favor. And I think if lawyers can't be brave, no one can be. Thank you, doctor.

If lawyers can't be brave, no one can be. And the test for justice is how we deal with people we despise. I really love that test for justice. Um, when you've talked about President Zuma, I could think of a parallel. Someone sent to he's supposed to be sent to prison for contempt without a trial, but that's another matter, but um but uh uh allow me to ask Alfred really to hand over to Alfred to give the next question and uh for those who are just joining us, we are with um Dr. Sikakani, Muzi Sikakane, senior council, um an acting judge, um a senior council, a lawyer, a rebel, and he says that every lawyer should be a rebel, and if lawyers are scared, the rest of you should be extremely scared. Um, okay, he hasn't said that, but that's my interpretation of of what he said. And he's also given us um a fantastic background on what he on on on who he is and what he does. So if you're just joining us, uh you're welcome to this conversation. It is us our usual team Edison Karanga, Mari Makabay, and Alfred Muaka. Over to you, Alfred.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. I like to bas on Dr. regarding the Zuma case to get into the idea of aspect of law is justice. I I'm sure he has somehow said at one point from I read these writings and noted that courts should not be courts of law but should be courts of justice, and is quoted to have said that what is just is not always legal and what is legal is not always just. Now, in the Zuma case, some judges hated him for representing President Zuma, and they were very impatient with him because it was important to them to demonstrate how much they disliked him, and they could not even hate it. So and that's the same thing which happens like in most cases which he handles, law, politics and public statements collide together. So my question to you, doctor, is how does the idea that law is not always justice shape your approach in representing all those big influ clients you represent, and most of them are politicians. I hope my question has been good.

But when I say law is not always justice and and you know it's because basically we tend to take this notion of positivism, the myth that law is neutral. It's the myth that law is neutral. And I think partly we miss the point that at the heart of governing society, of um arbitrating disputes in society, but not just in society between people, is being just. And if law does not concern itself with justice, then it's it's a it's an exercise in futility because justice forces you to understand inequalities in society, prejudices in society, psychological barriers in society. Right? We try to do this as judges when we do right at the end of the trial and people are to be sentenced and then mitigation, we're trying a notion of justice, but we try it at the end; it means we try at that point um to look at justice simply as sympathy, but justice is actually a fundamental notion in any any society. And so for me, when law is practiced without an eye on justice, h it can be oppressive. And that is why when law is in the hands of the privileged, when law is in the hands of the racist, when law is in the hands of manned classes, law becomes a weapon of destruction against society because it is unjust. But if justice was at the center, the reason if justice was at the center of law, a couple of things would happen in this continent. First of all, the skewed patterns of ownership, of wealth, of education, and set human settlement would be different. If justice was at the center of what we do, everyone would be able to access it. And the fact that those who are poor in this continent whose poverty can be traced exactly back to those who control our economies. It means what we are doing at the moment in the practice of law

Is continuing as if society is equal because we are not challenging the fundamentals that cause injustice in society. Um, and and so my understanding of justice has been always to plead good. First judges to be judged because being a judge comprises two qualities. One is understanding the law. Now all of us can understand the law if we are taught; we have a law degree. The part that is difficult is being a good person, good and just human being. That's probably the most important component of being a judge. The other one is just a necessity because you must understand the law. And I think that is lacking.

And it's lacking because most of us emerge from missionary and colonial education that teaches us not to question it. And lawyers emerge from law schools whose emphasis is actually not just constitutionalism but liberal constitutionalism where the individual tends to be regarded as fundamental when actually Africa has no history of that. Africa has a history of collective justice, of caring for society, for communities. But liberalism as a theory itself emphasizing um individuals has forced us to look at law that way without community context, without looking at society in general.

And my sense in my cases has been judges should and lawyers should be at the heart of understanding the political context of a society because if you don't understand that, if you don't understand why a young man from a township in so you don't understand why his mindset for survival is just crimes. You think he does that because he's black or he's uncool. You're failing to understand historical factors of the society to to which you must dispense justice. And so we need law that understands ideology as a set of ideas, that understands where Africans come from, that understands how Africans resolved disputes in their communities.

Because we are taught to look at ourselves as African people as inferior and therefore we think we are incapable of creating alternatives to dispute resolution, alternatives to what we call adversarial styles of litigation. And all of all of us people like wearing the wig and it represents what we think of ourselves. It represents our notion of of law. And so I think justice is always at the center of what I do as a lawyer. And that is why I hardly um reject a client who needs justice. And it doesn't matter whether I agree with them or I don't. The fact of the matter is that justice must determine what laws we write rather than the other way round. Hey, thank you, doctor. Justice must determine what laws we write other than the other way round.

One of the issues I think um as practitioners of justice that has really bedeled um in in Uganda, one of the issues that really disturbs our our justice system is the ability to deliver justice quickly. We have the average remand time, that is the time people spend in prison before trial. Um, two 2 years, 5 years, 7 years. We have people on remand for as long as 10 years before they can actually be tried without getting bail. Um, we have um massive backlogs. We have cases that take 10 5 years, 10 years. I think land cases take an average of 5 to 10 years. South Africa we South Africa extensively uses what they call acting judges advocates like yourself who practice and and who who bring so so in your case you don't just bring this perspective as a lawyer representing clients you've also had opportunity under the laws of South Africa to also sit in judgment on cases and to bring justice not just from the not just to to to make the case from the bar but to resolve the issue from the bench.

Um, and and in Uganda, our law provides for it, but since 1995, we've never actually um invoked that provision of the constitution. So before we even go into the the legal ease of that provision of the constitution, what safeguards are there to make sure that [Music] um your appointments as a lawyer who at the same time is a judge, you serve as a judge every once in a while, how do they how how is your independence and your and your competency um guaranteed? Because you come with this perspective that you know justice is even to the people you despise. um we have to listen to what people are saying. We have to be fair. These are the qualities of a judge is he shouldn't just know the law, but he should also be a good person. You you bring those skills from the bar and the bench and you keep moving in between. What's your experience with um whether these appointments preserve uh judicial independence, the appointments of lawyers and and and basically how that system works within the context of South Africa and is it part of the decolony uh idea? Yeah.

Let me let me start off with how uh let me first acknowledge I saw my compatriot here professor Isaac Shai and in the um audience um I greet him. Let me start by saying the differences I see that in in in Uganda for instance this has tended to acting as a judge those appointments have tended to be given to people who are sort of retired or it's not the lawyers who are in practice. Um, if I'm not wrong. Yes, you're right. What? Yeah. What happens here is that lawyers, both attorneys and advocates who are regarded as experienced, they don't have to be senior councils, but experienced and you people you look at beyond 15 or beyond 10 years of practice and even more. The judge president of each particular court would then um approach um the societies or the bar or the individuals that he knows or she knows has experience and could be a judge and it tends to be in that this happens in every division throughout the country. So lawyers and I mean by lawyers I mean both attorneys and advocates are an important component of dealing with the backlog. It's still not enough because people take stints of three weeks others a month others two months and they come back to run their practices and of course and in and that would work. It doesn't just deal with the backlog by the way. It also just trains lawyers while they are in practice to see how being a judge is. And by the time they become a judge, those who have judicial ambitions, at least they have had stints of acting for some years. And so in a way, it also prepares because there's nothing you can do with someone who's retired. you can't teach them anything but those who are coming into the system and I think it's better to try and implement the acting role in those who are in the practice of law so that they come in and assist the backlog but also it trains them for the future and and in a way it helps with what I call the juniorization of judgeship means when a person becomes a judge they have already they have some sense because when you are s sitting on the bench I tell you now it's invaluable that you also see yourself as you see other council making presentation you see your faults you see how terrible you are sometimes and you know what irritates judges you get more experience but it also forces you not to think uh partially because as lawyers we are trained to think about the interests of our our client and acting as a judge forces you to think for all parties or for both parties.

You touched on something very important and this point is about independence and if you go all over the world there's a there are different ways in which people approach independence of a judge. Others say you must create as you have in your country. They must be appointed by the judicial service commission. It must be independent. South Africa does the same. And um the independence of a judge is important. And you were saying but if you are a lawyer, how do you guarantee independence? I think independence of any person is not a function of structural divisions and how they are appointed. That's just the perception. I think independence is a is an issue of integrity, personal integrity. We don't go there largely because it's a difficult thing. It's like telling people they must not be sinners, they must be good. So even if you appoint judges by way using the private sector using um the judicial service commission powerful classes in society will still influence that process anyway. You can have the judicial service commission that takes its narratives and instructions or understanding or grand narratives from powerful classes in society. So it's the same. You're going to get judges that are preferred by those powerful classes. So I think we must train the African judge first to understand the conditions of Africa and secondly I think it's a job that we must really insist requires and this is the only way we can guarantee independence is people of the highest degree of integrity that is probably for me as a person I think if the person has no integrity as an human being as an individual. It doesn't matter how you appoint them. You can have all the pretenses of separation of powers, but they are all pretenses. If judges have no integrity as persons and they they are servants of ruling elites and you talk about people who are in prison for a long time. Well, I don't know in Uganda, but I think it's the same as here. If you went to those prisons and check who is there, which class of society is awaiting trial, it's young men and sometimes women from povertystricken communities who can't afford a lawyer, who can't afford justice, whose life is regarded as um not important. And that's not a coincidence and it's not something we should ignore as if people who are poor have a propensity not to be good. And and and and so we need to look at that too that the fact that our jails are full of a particular race, a particular class in society that can't afford justice. If you went to those prisons in Uganda and South Africa and checked knocked on every door, you will not find that the majority are those who are wealthy or children of the wealthy. It's children of those who don't matter. And I'm not saying they are not criminals. They may have committed crimes, but those long years they spend before they come to justice are caused by the fact that they do not matter. They have no voice. They come from communities that have no voice. And so we need to speed up in our courts how we try cases. And I think in Uganda in particular, it would serve not just the judiciary or the legal profession to introduce judges, acting judges from the profession, but it would also help society ensure quick justice. Because quick justice does not mean there will be no mistakes, but it means the impact of that mistake is not as profound. So someone who stays in jail for 2 years awaiting trial is more prejudice than someone who spent a weekend. And so I think we can learn a lot from each other about those. But about independence, I think we need to rethink the training of lawyers in service training for judges. But largely and lastly, just social conscientization of both lawyers and judges to be aware of the context in which they operate and the fact that you know the vestigages of colonial degradation remain with us. they remain with us. What we do when we think we are dispensing justice, we may be ensuring the continued survival of of privilege. Uh the continued survival of injustice uh the very thing that we should be against. And so for me, I think injustice actually should be enemy number one for anyone who's a lawyer or a judge. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Appointment of mission best judges. My questions are two. One is along the lines of obviously you represented fact that you've been appointed a mission best judge along the way of your career. How could you pressure which obviously exists once one is appointed as a mission desk judge visually the private practice which you want to thrive because you'd like to also um practice and yield your career as an advocate. I see that you you did create a law firm. So I'd like to understand how did you how do you think other lawyers can balance this in Uganda in case we do start to appoint mission based best judges and I think the other question is what would be your proudest moments and what challenges would you think are the biggest when appointing mission based judges and also when performing the roles as a mission best judge.

I think to balance practice um with um your mission requires commitment. Of course, one has to find time to serve society. It means when I go to act as a judge, of course, it can never pay me what private practice pays me. And no African can assist the state of Africa if money has the same value as humanity. And I think in your time as a lawyer, even with with the hardest pressures of survival, you must find time to serve society. And that's how I look at it. I find time to serve society. I find time um to represent people who are indigent. Half of my practice since I started and it doesn't mean I'm wealthy. I'm not at all. On the contrary, I struggle like all of you. But I was taught that um money is not everything. And I think we need that that balance. It's difficult but I think we must always find time. So when I'm acting as a judge for a month, I suspend my practice completely, divorce myself from talking to clients or attorneys and I focus on dispensing justice and try and make judgments quickly so that I'm able uh to dispense justice quickly so that people can either live with the decision I make and when I come back to practice of Of course, I'm behind. Uh, but I think it's a question of planning. And I think my thing to lawyers is that you can never be so busy as to find no time for other human beings for serving society.

And then I think the well the other question about my representing uh people I think you were mentioning the cases I do I think it creates pressure it creates pressure on on you but I think when you've reached a point that I've reached and I've never had a time when I was not under pressure since I was a teenager and therefore it comes with burdens. Um, but you ask me about what was my proudest moment. Well, there are many, but my proudest moments are cases that I've done that did not pay me money but were worth something in society. For instance, it's a case that is never known that much that I did is where poor children were not getting textbooks in a province called Limpopo in South Africa. And I did that case and won it and I was doing it for free. It took me months. My proudest moment was getting justice for poor school children in Limbopo and all over the country to get textbooks that were being delayed by bureaucrats who didn't care and the books were there s sitting in storooms and for me that was an important thing. So my proudest moments in my legal practice have been where I think I've defended justice even if it made me poorer. You know most of my cases make me poorer but I I think we have to teach this we have to leave this that money is not important. Instead, money has caused divisions uh in our society as we chase it because when we chase it, we do it at the at the at the expense of people we love at the expense of society and community. And so those are my proudest moments and when I've represented someone who otherwise whose life would have been destroyed had I not intervened.

I think we would also like to benefit from your proudest experiences your judge and especially as a mission best judge and also what challenge you say is the biggest challenge for mission best judges judges I think the biggest challenge as a judge it's it's what I said earlier is our notion that judges are neutral And I think that notion is exaggerated and sometimes confused with objectivity and fairness. I don't think judges are neutral and I don't think a judge should be neutral. I think a judge must be conscious about justice, must be conscious about what injustice is and the judge must be conscious about imbalances in in a society because you can never judge. That's why you are called a judge. You're not a motor mechanic. You are a judge because we have judgment to juggle different interest and factors in society. and being a mission judge for me is that our mission is actually breaking chains that tie Africa to injustice that was brought onto it by colonial oppression. And some people will tell you that is politics where law is politics and if law is not politics what are we doing? Because apartate in South Africa was a legal system. Colonialism in Uganda and everywhere else since since 1894 in Uganda, British settlement and colonialism in Uganda was a law. It's law that made it happen. It's law that made injustice and colonial conquest survive. It created laws. And therefore, a counter to colonialism is laws that are consciously liberatory in character. lawyers and judges who are conscious about reversing the curse of oppression on people, the curse of lentlessness, the curse of poverty, the curse of violence. And so when you are told that you must be neutral, you must ignore the fact that the scales are tilted in the favor of the privileged. We are being taught to perpetuate injustice. And so I think it's a difficult thing to do in a country where we are not supposed or in a continent where we tend we are not encouraged to question western knowledge. We are not encouraged to question western notions of law. Every student I've taught and asked them about law. They know nothing else. They can't think of anything else except Roman Dutch law and what we were taught. And one of the things we need to do and I'm very happy with this forum because you better than what we do. You're beginning to debate to reflect on what exactly is the mission of a judge in Uganda. The mission of a judge in this continent rather than a judge being just the repository of western knowledge, western norms, liberal norms and liberal notions of constitutionalism. And I think that is the challenge. It's never easy because when you challenge the system, what my brother called the rebel, it's difficult to be a rebel because it's a lonely path. And when you challenge a system, you you are an outsider. But it's important for for a judge, for lawyers to force themselves to be insiders. It means we must not res stop the fight to challenge knowledge systems that are anti-African systems of law and justice that are designed to perpetuate what our grandfathers, our grandmothers and all our forebears went through. and our children will not forgive us if what we did with law as lawyers was to simply perpetuate it rather than question it and make it applicable to the African experience. And that's what I try without venturing outside the law is to interpret what we have in a manner that is just and fair but takes into account the unique conditions of the inhabitants of of of my jurisdiction. Yeah. Thank you so much doctor.

When you're speaking of lawyers societies as if you are speaking to me that you must find society that you can never be busy find society and not money and even in your book you challenge lawyers young lawyers resist the urge to treat law me as a ladder for personal gain but instead you call on young lawyers to engage with the law as a tool for justice and transformation. So when you are making those you speaking to to us personally as a young lawyer but that bit the bit of in you that in colonial system you see we can all agree that there are very many compliant lawyers and a few rebellious one basically we have too many lawyers one and we we have one now on call in you and as you rightly noted Israel has never been changed by those who simply followed the rules. I think that's why you're calling upon us not to just look at the law how it is taught but also to to to refigure it to to fit into the African setting and define what law means to us as Africa. In your book, you really speak with agency agency to young lawyers, warning them against cowardice and encouraging them to resist the urge of validation at the expense of the truth like and not to conform to anything and I think that's what you live in the periphery of the system but again you challenge from within. describe yourself as a lived it. So my question now in legal system which is still shaped by colonial codes and reasoning cannot advocate and how do you disrupt the system without being excluded from it? That's my question doctor. Thank you sir. Let me start with um the early thing. You know, historically in society, you can go to biblical times. People who change society or who changed dominant thinking were few. So activists and rebels have never been conformists and most of them at a particular time in society have been condemned. Galileo was condemned. Karoa died in Nigeria and everywhere else. But it doesn't mean you should stop. And so you write in that way. It will always

Be a lonely path. It's not a losing path. It's a lonely path. Um, you know, Thomas Sankara was alone with a few people, and of course, even now we are told to ridicule, uh, General Traor and anyone who speaks against the system. So when I say lawyers must be brave, is that for me rebelling against a system? I'm not suggesting abolitionism, that everything we have must go, but I'm asking for originality. I'm asking Africans to rethink, to become the source of knowledge about law. Does this law that we borrowed, if we borrowed it, or that was bestowed upon us, forced on us, does it, on a daily basis as we face it, does it solve the problems, perennial problems of injustice, poverty, inequality, crime in society? Has it helped us? And if it hasn't, if your country remains on the peripheries, and as it was at the dawn of independence in Uganda in 1962, well, it's time to question it.

And I think lawyers must open channels like you are doing now, of bravely discussing issues that no one wants them to discuss, questioning the constitution itself, to say what exactly is a constitution. All constitutions, if you, you look at them, and I've read yours as well, it's not dissimilar to ours. It's truly, it's a liberal constitution, is that constitutions emerged from postwar periods, like codified and written constitutions, and the African continent has been tempted largely to borrow from Germany and Canada, largely to solve problems that are so unique. And one of the first things we must do as lawyers is not to be afraid to be called deranged. It means the ability to take the bull by the horns and question known philosophies, known and accepted, Jewish prudential notions that are taken as sacrosanct. And I think for me it starts with that discussion. It starts with the ability to question what we know and to question why we know it and to question why we don't question it.

And as I always say in my lectures, the problem with coloniality as opposed to colonialism. And let me just say that distinction I make is historically: this colonization, for me, was the process of occupying, settler colonial occupation as a process; coloniality was deeper, was the knowledge systems, the distortions of the mindset for Africans to succumb to, look at themselves as subservient. And so one needs to look at law with that in mind. And as I, I was saying, you know, if you ask the fish, or you told the fish that it's in water, it would laugh at you because it doesn't know. And Western knowledge is like that, or all knowledge is that people are unable to imagine knowledge outside what they know. And I think it's a tragedy for Africans not to explore legal systems that originate from their own ways of being, their own ways of thinking, and the realities of their people.

And the reason we don't do this, by the way, is because we live our lives seeking European or Western validation. And we are scared of being called foolish by people who are powerful, who historically oppressed us. And so what I'm calling for, for lawyers everywhere in the, in the continent, we must start discussing jurisprudential questions that we've not questioned. We must start questioning the dress that we use because it's not neutral. We must start questioning the terminology that we use in court. We must start looking at the hierarchy itself. We must start looking at our courts and whether this, this idea called the rule of law is really the rule of law, um, and, and whether, where does it meet the will of the people. And this idea that a judge, or judges by their nature possess the wisdom that should supersede the will of the people is a notion we must discuss again. And that's what I'm asking, Lord. That's what being a rebel is. It's not going around fighting anybody. It's the bravery to question what is not questioned.

And that is why the terminology in postcolonial states of something called transformation is something I use sparingly. I have used the term transformation. We use it a lot in South Africa. But I actually think it's a tragic terminology because it means accepting that all you need to do is to tweak a little this and that in the system that was designed for colonial conquest. And I believe that you must sometimes keep what you think helps you, but must completely destroy what was designed to oppress your people and start something new. And that's what I think Africans are scared of. That's what Africans and the postcolonial states are scared of. And that's that fear is caused by what I call the pitfalls, the power of coloniality. The mind that told us that we're not, we are inferior. We are unable to think; there will be no stability if we don't borrow from elsewhere, from Europe, from Western knowledge. I think the world has a lot to learn from African intellectuals, if they can grow a little spine and self-confidence. We are children of warriors that created cities, that created civilizations and pyramids, and no one should tell us that we're incapable of developing systems, legal systems that speak to the unique concerns of African people in the postcolonial era to reverse their plight. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Um, um, doctor, for those who are just joining us, we are with Dr. Muzi Sikani, the senior council from South Africa. Please, if you have questions, type them in and send them to us. I've received one. I'm going to read it out, but I, I think that that last point you've made, I think, is very profound. We are Africans. We are children of great people. Um, you know, we are the only survivors of colonialism. I'm told the Red Indians no longer exist. The Aborigines no longer exist. For us, we, we, we survived colonialism. And certainly we should be able to, to strengthen our minds, 'cause we, we are the children of survivors as well. Um, and, and for me this, for me, is, is takes us to our next question to you on this issue of, um, colonies. Can Africa truly decolonize without first imagining the advocate's role in the society, because you're saying we need to question the dress, the robe, many guys here like their robes. Um, can, can, and many people respect lawyers for, for those robes. Can, can we, and those flaps. Can we, how can we reimagine the role of the lawyer or the advocate in the society?

No. Well, that's the debate I would like lawyers to have. It's a, it's a, it's an uncomfortable debate, but you know, we, we start our constitutions with some preambles. In your constitution, for instance, you start with a preamble, uh, that says, "We the people of Uganda," uh, recalling our history which has been characterized by political and constitutional instability. Recognizing our struggles, struggles against the forces of tyranny, oppression, and exploitation. All right, we have a different one in South Africa. We say something similar, but I think yours is better. We say something like this, and I'm coming to the challenge that lawyers must have, because our constitutions and what we say in the preamble should tell you what we are prepared to do as opposed to yours. Ours says, "We the people of South Africa recognize the injustices of our past. Honor those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land. Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country and believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity," and all of that, right? One of the comparisons I'm going to give you about the two constitutions is that, and I'm not criticizing your constitution, it's the same as ours, is that even as we codify what is the mission of the postcolonial state, there are things we are scared to mention. We use polite terms, instability, uh, injustices of the past. We are unable to confront head on what it is that we are reversing: is colonial conquest by foreign settlers on our continent. Period. But the reason we don't say that, the reason we can't change things, you cannot change a problem, you are, you can't pronounce, and I think one of the things in the constitutions for me is that the challenge we have, what we are reversing is what happened to an African person, what happened to his or her continent and to her people and her resources, and I think every law that we put in place, for me, is not worth the paper it's written on if, since 1962 and in our case since 1994, half of us, if not all of us, are still complaining about the same things. It means politeness has not helped us, and all I'm asking for is that we must be bold in calling out what atrocities are we trying to reverse. We don't have to be polite. If you read, and I challenge you to go read the preamble of the Bolivian Constitution, it's braver than most. I'm not saying it's a perfect country, but it calls things by their names. You know, our colonizers, if they read our preambles, both Uganda and here, would not see the sins they committed. They would not see their names; they would not see the dead bodies and poverty and hunger they left that we are trying to deal with for decades. And so I think our constitutions must first be bold about what it is, our historical context and mention it because it's a constant reminder of what law is designed to do, which is it's designed to create a just and equal society. That's what the constitution should be doing. It is to reverse what necessitated it. And if it doesn't, it's of no use. It's a document that preserves the status quo, tinkering with, um, institutions but delivering very little.

And I think law needs to think about the colonial nature of our law and whether, I don't know in Uganda, but I think in South Africa my criticism is that the economy that causes inequality is still in the hands of people we continue to try to please, the remnants of colonizers. And I think we need laws that reverse the distorted wealth patterns, the distorted ownership patterns, the distorted knowledge systems that are anti-African that keep South, I mean Africans living in squalor, injustice, poverty, dehumanizing poverty for that matter. And I think if lawyers can tolerate that, and there has been talk sometimes that I'm a little emotional about, u, my approach to law, and it's not something I'm ashamed of. I think if injustice doesn't make you emotional, you are not human. If you can be cold and clinical and unattached in the midst of injustice, you are not human. And if you've not found something you can die for, you're not fit to live. And I think lawyers need that courage and need to approach law that way. Uh, so that it's worth something to our children, to our communities. And it's a service and tribute to warriors of all these countries that were colonized, who fought and yet we were defeated, but they fought. And every day we conform. Every day we do nothing. Every day we wake up just to conform and comply. Every day we wake up just to go make money. We betray the warriors that died and bled fighting the settlers. And I think we need to rethink the law, rethink its effect on society, the role of lawyers and what it does for society, not to society. And I think judges and lawyers have to rethink what has influenced the writing of these documents. And I think these documents, when I read them, all of them, you can see the influence of German jurisprudence, of Canadian jurisprudence, and we've always gone to countries that have problems that are not similar to ours, and I think it's time in Africa we shared some notes about our unique conditions of injustice, of equality or inequality and create constitutions [Music] that we liberate rather than maintain. Thank you.

Thank you so much, um, Dr. Zikakani for that. I think when you say it's time we share experiences, you are certainly preaching to the choir. I have, I, I have questions from some of the, from some people in the audience. um, the, and after that I'm so, I'm going to ask you one question from someone in the audience and then I'm going to hand over to Ali Seatau who I think also has some questions, since so Ali you'll unmute but after doctor answers this question, um, this question comes from a very interesting person, the person who's asking this question is, I don't see him on, on, on, on the space, but he has sent this question and he's the president of the Uganda Law Society, Mr. Zakim Makad, and he says that you lead a team representing Judge Maya of the Eastern Cape against a sexual harassment charge in the ongoing judicial conduct tribunal, um, without speaking to the specifics, and he says the proceedings have been broadcast live, and I think he's watched them, and he's particularly watched your cross-examination, and he calls you the legal rebel, that, just for context, the president of the Uganda Law Society is known as the legal rebel here in Uganda, and he's saying, um, he's saying that the proceedings were broadcast live on television and you cross, and the cross-examination by the legal rebel was the highlight of the proceedings, and he says it's been adjourned to 11th July. Without speaking to the specifics of that case, which is a case you're handling, and without going into the details, he wants to know what impact high-profile judicial conduct tribunals such as the one involving Judge Maya have on the public perception in South Africa of the judicial shows of the judiciary's accountability and transparency. Glad you don't want me to go to the specific 'cause it's an ongoing case, but I think these [Music] uh, fights, these battles themselves are not unrelated to battles, the undercurrent battles in society and dynamics and fights between classes within the legal sector. They are not unrelated to those battles, and of course when they are made public, as it is. Yes, it's good that repositories of power who are human are scrutinized publicly. It means the public can decide what it thinks about those who, who have power. It has its own impact, of course, that people first may well think that a particular judge has no integrity. But also it teaches people, as I always say, that everyone must be presumed innocent until the process is done. But cases of this nature are a problem because everyone has a view, and that view is not born, has no relation with the facts. And that's the problem with cases of this nature, of sexual harassment and maybe of racism, maybe of, that have tribalism, maybe things that are hot and sensitive in society. And so the pressure about these cases is the fact that even as the case starts, people have made up their minds. People have made up their minds. But I think the public nature, you, in this particular case, I'm the one who argued because I came to it late that it must be made public, because when a case is not public there is mischief played by the media, means the public is reliant only on snippets of the media. So if the media is controlled by a particular class, society can only hear or see what media owners want. And I think it's important that it's public in the sense that people can see the good and the bad about power relations in society. And I think that's, that's a good thing that it happens. What may be a bad thing is also the fact that in South Africa, I don't know where you, you guys are lucky, I think maybe the colonizers left South Africa is unique in the sense that the colonizer did not leave, and so battles in society also take that form, even within the executive, even within the legislators, even within the judiciary, and so the public nature of battles of this nature. Although some people think it denigrates the integrity of the judiciary, I think it shows the public the conduct, the nature, the dynamics, the power relations in structures of people who occupy public power. The problem with judges is that sometimes, in fact, most of the time they forget that they are occupants of public power. They are the repository of public power, and sometimes they want to be dealt with differently. But I think when we are a repository of public power, you must expect scrutiny, criticism. And in South Africa, there's even a line, judges say when you criticize a judge or judges, you must, uh, provide your reasons and set them out. It sounds very attractive, but it means my mother who's uneducated is unable to scrutinize someone who's powerful like a judge the way he feels, the way she feels, you know, so I think those cases are very difficult, and by the way, most of us like doing our work privately, and the pressure of going to court, I think because most of you are lawyers you would know this, just going to court gives you, gives you sleepless nights just to present to 10, 11 or five judges. When you walk in, you tremble even if you thought you had a good case. But what people don't know is walking inside a court with 10 people representing someone they call a rascal, and there are four TV cameras beamed to the world, and you must still do your job. And as you do your job, people have taken sides on the issue. They don't need the facts. And so I think that's the pressure of these cases. But you wouldn't be called senior counsel if you didn't expect, uh, that pressure. And you also need the generosity to forgive society for judging you because that's the nature of the job. You are there because you understand that context. You understand? And you must look at, I look at law at my job as, um, educational, even at the height of pressure, even at the height of persecution and belligerence from a judge, a contemporaneous judge, I see my role as teaching, even that behavior by a judge and my interaction with that judge, I see it as an educational process for society to see and judge for themselves, as long as I'm respectful. I'm rigorous with a judge, but I'm respectful. And I think it's important to preserve the integrity of the judges, but it's also important to point out that judges are human, that judges themselves can be controlled by elites in society, that judges, if they are careful, they too, because they are human, can fall prey to all sorts of things. So sometimes even tragedy, even tragedy of one person is a benefit for millions of people. Uh, somebody at the funeral of, um, George Floyd, a priest at the funeral of George Floyd said, when God wants to help society he sends a human being, and that human being goes through or tragedy. And I think there is public education in these cases, and there's public education in tragedy. Okay.

Thank you so much. Um, doctor, we are going to hear from Ali, but we have, we had a plan for 1 and a half hours. I think we are 10 minutes above our time, and I know, I know that you have, quote, I think in the morning. So you're going to go and burn the midnight candle. Um, uh, so, um, maybe Ali if you could just ask one question in under a minute, and Joy as well, then we shall, you shall take both those questions at once. Joy Babazi, please ask just a very short question, um, under one minute, so he can take both those questions at once. Okay. Uh, thank you Dr. Muzi. Mine is the land question. I, I have been to South Africa and Namibia. I realize the distortion in the land ownership structure where probably 80% of the population, uh, is landless, and the major parts are either parks or gazetted farms compared to maybe like Botswana again where land is mostly distributed amongst the people, and in Uganda here where it is mass ownership of land, but also, um, the biggest challenge because over 60, 70% of the disputes here in Uganda, legal disputes again, because partly because of these colonial laws and the historical structures, so I wanted to hear from you in light of the exprop, what's your view at a higher level on the land. It can be addressed in, in light of, uh, this other discussion of, you know, expropriation, um, compensation, but also dispute resolution. Edison, you'll also allow me one more question because Jobster writes, uh, very profoundly about the one is the, the legal one we are looking at. But he writes about religion and education, those two twin, uh, those two twins as tools of coloniality and therefore the need to address them when we are talking about decoloniality. Now here Uganda, as you know, our motto is "For God and My Country." We are very religious, uh, many Christians, Muslims and so on, and to our education system is, as you know, based mostly as a colonial, um, and I think also South Africa again, I wanted Doctor on what he thinks we can do in respect, addressing the question of decolonization, in light of those items in our organization, our history or our minds. Thank you. Okay, Joy Jo, under one minute. Joy, please ask a question in under one minute, or actually one in under a sec, 5 seconds since Alia has taken two. I think we'll give you half, half a second. I'll take it. Thank you hosts and thank you doctor for the time and accessing us this amazing information. I'll definitely come back to listen. I'm glad it's being recorded. All protocol observed. Now I'll head straight into the question.

To observe my 30 seconds that have been given to me. Now, we have been advised, um, and encouraged as young lawyers to read beyond the law, to immerse ourselves in history, political thought, and philosophy. And there's been an emphasis on true transformation. What true transformation requires, and that is more than just the legal knowledge.

Now, on this background, Doctor, could you kindly share, uh, some of the books outside of the legal field that you have read that you would say deeply influenced you? And you may tell us why they influenced you, because I believe that it is in books that we pick out, um, different knowledges and open up our minds to, uh, different jurisdictions and get knowledge that you're pushing us to go out there and get. Thank you very much once again for the opportunity; that would be my question for now. Thank you.

Let me start. Um, thanks for those questions. On the land question, you saw right that, uh, the land question, the land issue, or land ownership patterns in South Africa and Uganda was similar. But I think in South Africa we've done very little. And I think it's because our political settlement itself was designed—it's what I call wanting to go to heaven without dying. We wanted freedom, but we didn't want to hurt the colonizer, the oppressor. And so we have some, we have something that keeps the system intact. We want change. We also are like someone who steals your car, and when we reconcile, but the thief must keep the car so that we keep the peace. And I think that's what causes what I call skilled land ownership patterns. And also because those who were oppressed must buy the land back, give the one who stole it some money. And so I think we've not, we've not dealt with the issue properly. So the expropriation act—there's a fake debate in South Africa at the moment about the expropriation and white farmers going to the US. There's no expropriation in South Africa. 80% of the land is still owned by those who owned it before 1994. And so I think we still have to do much as lawyers to take cases for our people to own the land. But also you will see that in your, in, in, in article 237 you deal with, in your constitution deals with land ownership. We do that in South Africa in I think section 25, which is about property, and I think we must look at the Mozambican one if you want to see how land ownership is. They believe, well, they say ownership is owned by the people, and so it's, it's phrased differently from ours. So I think we need to look at those, um, constitutions without law. Anyway, my belief is that no human being must own what they found on earth. But that's just my socialist views. So I think that's it.

On Christianity and education, I think oppression and coloniality came from both this, the classroom and the pulpit. Spirituality is a very important tool of making someone succumb. And I think we must look at education and look at religion—and I don't want to call it religion; let's call it spirituality—to reverse things, because I think colonialism and missionary education and Christianity—and I'm a Christian, by the way—but I think Christianity had a role of despiritualizing an African person and removing them from the sanctity of the soil where they were born and how they worshipped. And I think we need to revisit how we worship, how we teach, how we learn, and what values we learn. On advice about books, I've read so many books, and I think one of the things is I read all the books by Fanon and everybody else, but I think commentary from African authors. I spend time reading Nigerian author Ben Okri, just about society—so much is, is hidden in, in those, in, in his prose about the African society. Ngugi himself—I read a lot of his novels just to understand society—but every time I talk to young lawyers about how to look at society, I ask them to go and read Fanon's chapter on the pitfalls of consciousness, because it talks to everybody in every situation who looks at himself as inferior to reconscientize themselves. And I think those are the types of books I read. I read religious books, and I read every book in order to critique, um, society, and I think lawyers are best advised to read what we are told is just politics or novels or literature, because hidden in there is knowledge that would make us better lawyers, because I think lawyers are like engineers, and they shouldn't be like this. They are probably the most narrow-minded professionals because they are not encouraged to read beyond the affidavits and law books that they read. And I think if they read more outside law, they would become better critiques of law and practitioners of law.

Um, thank, thank you, Doctor. I can see a few engineers and, um, pharmacists on—I hope they didn't feel inside. I'm sure they didn't. I'm sure they didn't. Um, and, uh, I think, um, we, we, we're starting to wind down. Um, we had asked for people who have questions. I think, um, I'm, I'm advised the president of the law society has advised that he, he's watching it on YouTube. So we are being watched on YouTube, um, TikTok, and on X. Um, I think we had asked for a few questions. I'm not seeing any at the moment, and I know that, uh, Doctor, you're under a lot of time pressure. Um, but I'm Alfred, I'm told, has one. I think there's one that has been sent to Alfred. If we could just have that one and then, um, we just do winding up remarks.

Yes. Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. And I know I'm buying into your midnight, but just from your—to this one question, talk of us having a discussion which about talk, you talk about rethinking the training of lawyers, and this one believes that this a discussion that believes we must engage in, and so he's asking how can law students and young lawyers question existing systems without sounding disciplined, their senior colleagues, because the point when, when you think the training which is about now, I think the training of lawyers was also on it, so it's wondering how, probably young lawyers can question their existing systems without sounding their senior colleagues, because something you can do something says, ah, what you don't respect your senior, something of that sort. Thank you—basically obedience and—Yes.

Thank you. Yeah. I, I think, I think if society didn't have young people who are rigorous and and frontal, society would not have developed. And I think being critical is not being disrespectful. And I think we must encourage critical thinking in our education. And it's been lacking. And so without disrespecting anybody, I think lawyers and students—it's their job. It's the job of student and intellectuals to be different. And I think anyone who is a senior or a teacher and encourages students to conform rather than to question should not be in the classroom, because the classroom is a place not of teaching. You know, human beings are not wheelbarrows into which you pawn. The classroom is a place for the production of knowledge, and that includes the teacher and the learner and the context. And so I think students must be respectful catchers, but no one should tell them not to question. We wouldn't be here, um, if people like Galileo and others, um, were punished for telling us truths we know now about that the, the, the earth evolves around the sun—if they always is round—but someone, people thought it was flat. It took someone who was young, who was questioning, who was prepared to die for that knowledge to teach us what we know now to be true. But he was punished for it. And that's my advice to lawyers, to students, and those who are senior—students question me every day. Young lawyers question me every day. And that, for me, the best process of teaching is when I'm being questioned. [Music] Yeah. Okay. Um, it's okay. Proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh, Dr., um, Sikani. I have one final, final question. I think he'll take under a second. I've only allowed him, Mr. Delton Kawisa, because he is the head of news of one of the Uganda television stations, and I don't want him to give us bad news. But, but Delton, I'll give you half a second. Just half a second, 'cause Doctor really does have to leave. Okay, Delton. I think Delton, you've muted. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much, Don. And Doctor, I'm, for the record, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm en—I've enjoyed this conversation. Is the head of news? So, he's the man in charge of, of setting the narrative. Doctor, I wanted to find out—it's related to the previous question. There's a, a growing trend, um, among, um, lawyers that, uh, when they have disagreements or they have, they don't get the right judgments in, um, the courts of law, they involve in proxy attacks that, um, and I, this my question is that how, in the, in the spirit of rebellion—it hasn't really manifested the way you have, maybe the US president has manifested it or yourself has manifested it—but it's taking a, a, a trend that is a bit scary through proxy attacks in judicial offices. What is the fate of, um, the legal profession and, uh, uh, justice sector if that kind of trend continues? Thank you.

Yeah. No, thank you. It's an important question because being rigorous and being disrespectful are not the same, and I think it's a function of both judges and practitioners to create a, a conditions of trust. You know what you see, and you say people say all sorts of things about judges. Yes, should not be encouraged, but it's a function of the relationship that lacks trust and those who are holders of power. You don't force people to respect you. By the way, you don't tell them by regulations to respect you. People will naturally respect you if they think you have integrity. And I think while we encourage people to be courteous, we must also encourage holders of power to have integrity, because when they have integrity, they are largely unlikely to be questioned the way they are. And I think sometimes we focus, as your question does—you're focusing on lawyers or people criticizing judges, and you are right. But you must also know that people who are leaders and holders of power have a responsibility to earn the respect rather than to demand it. And I think if we had that context and that ability and that discussion, you would have less of those attacks and and reckless statements by practitioners. But, of course, they must be discouraged. And I think respect must be mutual all the time. All the time. Lawyers must respect judges, and judges must respect lawyers. Human beings must respect human beings regardless of their station and their power and their age, their agenda. Um, thank you.

Thank you so much, um, Doctor, for, for that. I think now we're going to start winding this down. Um, allow me to really do a special thank you to Yangamuta, the tax ombudsman from South Africa, for having, for helping to make this, um, very possible. Um, Doctor, any closing remarks before—usually what happens here is, um, I take the privilege as the host to, to make the final closing, uh, um, remarks, and, um, and I've also been asked to re-sing in Kosi, um, Africa. You don't think I'll be able to do that? That was a one-hit wonder. But, uh, but any closing remarks, Doctor?

Well, usually when you are invited to speak to people, the assumption is that they learn it from you. But I think I just think I learned a lot from the questions because they force me to go look at other things, see different perspectives. Hidden in questions is also knowledge. So I'm very grateful for the invite, and I think I learned more than you did, and I hope we will engage again and and Africa will be free again.

I, I am 100% sure, Doctor, that we certainly learned more than anyone else. We, we are blessed entirely by your knowledge, by your perspective, by the time that you've taken. I was particularly—I, I when you spoke about, um, our constitutions not, uh, not addressing the challenges directly and our laws not facing up to the issue of col, the colony, the colon, the colonization of our minds, the emasculation of our spirits, I, I remembered, uh, reading that, um, that there are about 120 synonyms for blackness and more than most of them are offensive—blot, soot, devil, foul—while for the other race there are things like, um, cleanliness, chastity, innocence. So the history and linguistics have conspired to, to make us feel bad. And I think your presentation today to what was a legal community but to really up our spirits and strengthen our people, I think is something that we are profoundly humbled for and grateful for. Thank you. And, and, and we are so thankful that you could take time off and, uh, off your busy schedule. I know you have a, you have a matter tomorrow. You're going to study again through the night. Um, you've told us so much about cases that are in the public domain, the, the people, uh, people biasing the public before you can even have your trials. I, I can tell you I have some experience with that. And so I think we are deeply humbled, first of all, that you took time off your busy schedule to speak to us. We are grateful, um, also to Ali Secretariat helping us to organize it. We are grateful to those who are, who have joined us and sat with us for this time. We are very grateful to your team for the patience that they have had with us, uh, as we've gone through this exercise. Above all, we are grateful for the opportunity to exchange ideas. These ideas are being shared south of the Sahara, north of the Kalahari, east of the Limpopo. And we are extremely grateful to you, Doctor, for, for taking the time out. We have, we're also grateful to the law society. I saw the, the, the secretary of the law society. I saw the acting secretary of the law society. I see the president of the law society also. Uh, I see people from the media. I see judicial officers. I see academicians. I see government officials. I see a lot of, um, lawyers, and I see very many ordinary people. Um, and I don't mean ordinary in a bad way. Very many of our clients, our friends, um, who have come to listen to you. And I'm sure you've all been blessed with the interaction that we've had here. We are deeply humbled, exceedingly grateful for you and for the time that you've spent joining us here wherever you've joined us from. There's such insistence here that I should try my luck against singing—maybe, um, Doctor, you'll bear with me as I try, uh, one or two lines from the South African anthem and, uh, sung in the most random discord that exists. Uh, this, this is nothing like, uh, Miriama, but, um, but something that like [Music] [Music] this for those joining us from where you're joining us from. Thank you so much. Thank you, Doctor, and everybody joining. Good, good morning, good afternoon. I think I do. I think I do. I think I do. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. Thank you so much. [Music] Let us [Music] see. [Applause] Yes. South Africa. [Applause] [Music] [Applause] Africa sounds the call to come together and united we shall stand. Let us live and strive for freedom inside the [Applause] freedom. Heat. Heat.