How to build trust and capacity in our justice system.

Domestic violence. So we would want us to understand whether, as well as men, can come and seek justice if they experience domestic violence.

In the same vein, I would like to acknowledge Mr. Julius Jjoke for the work he does to enable access to justice in my captor. I'm forever grateful for the trial advocacy training which Mr. Julius has accorded to me through Justice Trial Advocacy Uganda. However, I must share with you that, unfortunately, the justice system is not allowing me to deliver the justice I want to deliver. I'm sure I'm not alone in this struggle because many young lawyers are, and were, slowly losing morale to go to court. We now prefer JARA as an alternative to litigation, but I think it cannot solve everything. So today, I look forward to your insights on how we can best deliver justice to Ugandans despite this system, which is followed by case backlog, and how we can deliver justice in a system which is presumably serving injustice.

Colleagues, as they say, no one can stop me, and no one will stop me. My name is Alfred. I'm honored to host this conversation today with Mr. On Kaluhanga, and with that, I'll hand over to Kaluhanga to proceed. But just before he proceeds, I would like to know—I've seen very many statutes today. I've seen high courts. There's now a High Court, there is Mpigi High Court, there is Rakai High Court—and usually it is said that courts are not just buildings. So are we just creating more courts with no judicial officers? Because already in Masaka, there's no judicial officer. So are we creating more buildings without judicial officers? Or I'd like to have your comment on that. And then, probably the rating mission, best courts where the mission best-based judges will deliver justice from. Before you proceed, I would like you to clarify on that. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Alfred. I'm honored to be here and I'm very grateful to Julius and Ian for joining us, and to you, Alfred, of course, for your fantastic hosting services that you've graciously rendered us in the last nine weeks. And I think it's been nine weeks of excellent conversations. We've generated some heat and generated some light as well, and light, we know, is the best disinfectant.

Your question to me is, you're seeing many High Court circuits being put up. Are these High Court circuits—is court just a building? I'm happy that actually High Court circuits are being put up. I congratulate the judiciary for that. I think it's a move to bring justice closer to the people. I think even more judges have been appointed, even in Masaka. I see that at least I know that a particular judge has been deployed there, and I'm sure there'll be many other judges deployed in Masaka in the coming weeks and months. So we are seeing an increase in the manpower of the courts and an increase in the distribution of the courts, and for me, that's a good thing. The culture of the court not just being a building is also something which I think is going to have to happen. We need to start seeing electronic hearings. That being said, I think that we have a wonderfully long way to go to deliver the justice that we need to deliver. And I think the judiciary needs to adopt the Nelson Mandela mentality that every time you climb one hill, you find that there are many more hills yet to climb.

And talking about Nelson Mandela, it is a great honor and privilege to have our guests, Julius Sajok and Lilian Adrio. And I want to start with Lilian. Lilian heads an incredible organization called FEDER. It is, as Alfred said, like a court. So maybe Lilian, before we get into the meat of the conversation we want to have about building the trust and capacity back into our judicial system, maybe if you could just tell us a few things about yourself, who you are, what makes you tick, and tell us about this very powerful organization called FEDER. Thank you very much.

Good evening to all. Please increase your volume. Then you put the microphone down. I believe that an empowered woman is a necessity, and she's there for necessity. FEDER was formed in 1974. Um, FEDER is in itself an acronym, a Spanish acronym that mostly means an association of women lawyers as a tool for social justice. Our constituency is women and children. To answer the question as to who the ultimate beneficiary of our intervention is—a woman or a child—we will take that that went on. If you look at our statistics, about 40% of the cases that we handled last year were actually family kind. So, briefly, that is FEDER. We have offices in over 17 districts across the country, but out of those 17 districts, because of the overwhelming demand, we serve an estimated 40 districts. Every district that we are in, we serve a neighboring three or four districts. Briefly, that is about the entity that I work for, which is yes. Yes, it's okay. Thank you so much. You're in 40 districts you said, and 17 districts across the country are situated. Okay. So while you are present in 17 districts, you are serving 40 districts. The example we've been giving of court is not a building—you can lack a physical presence but be present. That is correct. Some of our services are actually offered virtually. So we are addressing digitization to expand our services. You know, there's a big debate about men online these days. I think when they hear that you are digital, you may be scaring some people. But allow me to look up Julius. Julius Jjoke. Alfred already introduced you. You are a trainer in litigation. I have also myself been trained by Julius. He's a litigator. I've also been against him in court before he trained me. I regretted not having gone to the training before I met him in the courtroom. But also a good friend and someone I've known for long. But Julius, just tell us about yourself briefly and what makes you tick.

Thank you very much, Ellison. Thank you very much, listeners. I feel very privileged that you honor me with your time. I know it's pretty late, especially at this time and especially for the women. Jerusalem now is so... I really feel honored that you let me have this. About his frustration of not being able to practice what we're talking about: don't be frustrated, and I'll use the example of two people who are on the floor, that's Nicola and Diana. I think when Nicholas is confronted with injustice, that is when his true colors come up; he gets the zeal to fight more. And I will tell you, when you only have maybe 500,000 shillings and you feel frustrated, that's the reason why you work hard and get more money in your pocket. So that frustration should be a drive for you to work harder, not to get frustrated. Then I encourage you to work harder. Don't get frustrated. That is our mission—that justice must be achieved by all. Coming back to your question, I think injustice is what kept me going, and mainly for the poor who cannot afford. You find that many of our people, because of our justice system, which is mainly colonial and just about 100 years old, may not be able to access the justice system. That is what keeps me going, and that is why I have dedicated myself to 100%. I am an advocate. I am a mediator. I am an arbitrator. I'm a trainer. Now I do lecturing, just to make sure that we have a pool of lawyers who can push for justice, irrespective of the numbers. For us who are Christians, we know Jesus started alone. He called, then he had 72, and now we have billions of Christians in the world. So for me, it is something that I have dedicated myself to. Thank you very much.

Yeah, thank you so much, Mr. Mediator, trainer, arbitrator. I think you have already judged, but now that makes me... If I go... I want to get one comment from one of our amazing listeners and I want to use that comment to propose the first question to you. He noted—it's called Madame Nor. I'm sure she should be on the space today as well—that the root causes of case backlog is the quality of judicial officers and the mode of court hearings. So, in my view, from what—from my comments—it paints a picture of someone who has lost faith in the justice system. I understand you have worked very many years trying to deliver justice. I would like to hear your comments on the quality of our judicial officers and how you can address it, and in doing that, give us what you think is the state of the bar and the bench—the current state of the bar and the bench. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I must say I am happy that the state of the bar has greatly improved from the time I joined the bar in 2006. When I joined the bar, we didn't have very many specialized lawyers, but now you have a lot of lawyers who are specialized—whether you talk of criminal, you talk of tax, you talk of environment, oil and gas—and I am increasingly seeing lawyers dedicate themselves to only one aspect of the law, not being jacks of all trades, and to me that is a positive thing. I have also seen a tremendous increase in the number of lawyers we have now, and at the LDC, for the first time, we have two intakes of about 1,600 students who want to become advocates. We will, if all these people are out there practicing, improve the justice system. I have also seen many lawyers partner with external law firms, and this is a testament to their ability and their integrity. They do tremendous background checks in order for you to partner with law firms outside the country. And if we can have lawyers do this, it is really a positive step to the state of the bar in Uganda, for which I am increasingly seeing that being done, whether within Africa or within the entire world. That shows you that our bar is increasing in capacity and ability because some of those networks provide trainings to our lawyers which make them improve their capacity. It also means that we are supporting the economy. If you look at the traditional thinking of a lawyer, it was all about litigation. But lawyers have diversified. I know of lawyers who only practice employment law and they only advise in-house counsel. I know of lawyers who now do oil and gas without doing anything else. So it means that the bar is now offering diversified services to our economy. I must suddenly say I am like you. I get frustrated by a few but loud lawyers who lack quality and decorum. You find when we joined the bar, you wouldn't stand up when there was a senior lawyer, and we knew them all, but these days it's very rare that a young lawyer will wait, and they are capable of even shouting at you. This is not the decorum of a member of the bar. It is really unbecoming, and I feel something should be done about it, and if we don't do it sooner or later, we will have a big problem with it. But we'll become a marketplace, and people will laugh at us. Our strength to the public is in the way we hold ourselves, and I think that is very important. So that is what I can say, but also I have increasingly seen the engagement between the bar and bench, which has helped bridge the gap between the bar and bench. It used not to be like that, and it used to be a bit confrontational, but now there is a lot of those meetings where we are able to iron out some of those issues that may come up between the bench and the bar. So that is the state of the bar as I can describe it now.

Right. So, as it is for comment on a good picture on that… I think you forgot… You can ask… You can ask now… You see, he wants us to use using one phone, but you see I can't listen from his phone anymore. Okay. The lawyers have been complaining because he's on special assignment, and recently he got appointed out of the country, and so you have a huge backlog and there is no one to handle. Each time you go to court, the clerk has to take you either to the registrar, or the clerk will give you a date himself. When I was involved with the judiciary on drafting the mediation rules of 2013, the judges of the commercial court had 360 cases on average to handle. Now it is huge. I was having a chat with Ellison, and we were saying, you see, like in Gulu, the judge has 1,500 cases. Now I don't know how many years he has to work daily to finish that backlog. That becomes a serious matter. We have seen a tremendous improvement in the appointment of magistrates. What is disheartening, however, is that you find somebody who has not practiced law is being appointed to the bench, and then you begin to wonder how they will handle the matters which are filed before them without experience. I want to believe that there should be some level of experience because you are handling quite serious matters when you join the bench, and so some level of experience for magistrates should be there, just like we have for judges. So it is important that we have that, and also increasingly we are seeing cases of lack of decorum by the lower bench, emotional outbursts, you know, some unethical conduct which should not be exhibited by the bench. A member of the bench should always be calm, collected, and decide based on reason and logic and not on emotional outbursts. And so I think the appointment of magistrates should be rethought, and they should be given some level of experience to enable them—whether it's Grade One—to enable them exercise that role better. I don't think that the induction of two weeks is enough for them to sit and decide cases as they do. I thank you, and I think that takes me to… Thanks a lot. I think the points are well hit, and I think that takes me to… You're looking at the sort of things we are hearing, and access to justice intersects with trust in our courts. If our courts are overburdened, overwhelmed, rude, how does gender and gender issues, how do they—gender issues and access to justice—how do they intersect with trust in our courts? Thank you.

As an organization and most especially as a service provider, our clients should experience fairness and efficiency as core tenants of their trust in the court systems. And just to note that all the issues that my colleague has mentioned—delayed justice, for example—disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable and amplifies the inequalities that we are constantly seeking to address as an institution. So, for whatever a person that can afford in the court system suffers, a client suffers that ten times over the other person that can afford to seek the services of a private lawyer, for example. Delayed justice in the justice system compounds social inequalities. It perpetuates poverty. Remember that our clients can hardly afford filing fees. They can't afford transport to the court seat, to the courts that are far from where the clients live. We have districts where we don't even have any court at all. So that, coupled with a time poverty issue—our clients who are mostly women have got a lot of domestic work that they need to attend to that consumes a lot of their time—so when you look at all these things and look at what happens when justice is delayed, we actually end up making these clients poorer than they were when they came to first seek the services from us. So our clients are also, in very many ways, affected by the delayed… We have clients who have been compromised by perpetrators because of those delays that we are talking about this evening. We have clients that—whose case we were following up—that was a victim of trafficking that was paid off a million shillings. Her witnesses were also paid off. So, in a way, this delayed justice perpetuates what we call systemic issues or systemic graft that arises—it's opportunistic graft that arises as a result of this delay. So a client seeking custody for her children from an abusive parent or a client seeking a maintenance order for her children to go to school or for health support—time is of essence for this client, and remember that they are living below the poverty threshold. So this support and services that they are seeking from their partners and or spouses is all that they are depending on. So while we've seen increased effort from the family justice system to handle these cases expeditiously, but like my colleague has said, the case backlog is way too high. We saw that there was a case backlog that was inherited from the last financial year of over 42,588 cases. That puts it to about 26.8%. It would need a person that is—you would have to have supernatural powers—to be able to handle these cases, to handle all the cases that are before you, to deliver fair and timely justice to the clients that are seeking justice in your court. We've also, as an institution, been lobbying for specialized gender-based violence services for gender-based violence survivors, and we see the effort from the judiciary—they pilot some of these approaches in some courts, for example in Masaka, in Gulu, and in Nwoya—but what we are saying as an organization is that this is not sufficient and that it should be rolled out to all other courts so that it becomes an institutionalized practice. We've also, through our prison interventions, seen that about 70% of inmates are living below the poverty threshold. And for these clients of ours that are put in for sometimes trumped-up cases, for sometimes keeping them away from land that is being grabbed from them—when they come out after prolonged periods in the prisons, they find their land gone. They find their homes gone, and they find their children have also been taken away. So they are left powerless because of the prolonged stay in the prison settings without access to bail applications. On average, a land case takes about 5 to 10 years within the system. That is way too long. It ties up the economic activities of the land users, and it perpetuates poverty because when there are no injunctions, you're not able to use this land. If, for example, you're not able to obtain an injunction for you to continue using the land, then you are denied usage, and these women survive mostly from tilling this land. They are not able to survive or to look after themselves and their children. We obtained an injunction for a client of ours in Loro for a three-acre pineapple farm, and it meant the world to her because of that temporary injunction because she was able to harvest her pineapples and she was able to dispose of them and look after herself and her family. So imagine if we had not obtained that injunction in a timely manner, what would have happened to that client of ours? So, briefly, those are the intersects between gender and trust within the institution. Not to mention the issue of fairness. We, for example, had cases where we are terminating marriages, where we are trying to dissolve marriages and are looking to have property that has been obtained during the subsistence of that marriage. And there's always a bias—I don't know whether it is conscious or unconscious—we find our clients having to produce evidence that they contributed to this matrimonial property, but this is not asked from their men. So that is not…

A fair, um, system. It's not a fair court, um, before which we appear to to gain to get some kind of, um, equality. And what we've agreed to do or decided to do as an institution in those sorts of instances, um, is to file strategic interest litigation, um, cases so that, um, these issues are addressed at at a strategic level and where need be, laws and or practices are amended to ensure that gender…

Telling us about the 42,588 cases are cases which are pending in the system 2 years or more in South Africa, for criminal matters. We were told on this we had we had a guest from South Africa who told us from South Africa who told us that the backlog was 9 months from plea. If the case has not been finished within 9 months, it would have been uh backlog in criminal and in civil matters I think 6 months from the filing of the last pleading from the close of pleadings. So mediation, everything should have happened, the trial should have happened, and a decision would have happened within 6 months, and if it's not within 6 months, it's classified as backlog. That actually means that 100% of our cases here I think a backlog and, um, I think and and I think what you're saying is it disproportionately affects the poor, um, poor people have become poorer people abandoning their cases. What should we do? What can we actually do to make sure that we put justice back in business? Lillian, people are abandoning their cases. What should we do? What can we actually do to make sure that we put justice back in business? Lilia [Music]

Um, that is a a question that needs, um, a multifaceted approach. I'll attempt to respond to it. What we have been doing as, um, as as as Federa Uganda is, um, we've we've partnered actually with the judiciary to, um, ensure that some of these, um, um, you know, issues that I have mentioned are addressed, but a lot of it remains, um, points of of lobbying for us. Um, for example, um, one of our mandates as an organization is, um, we we lobby for legislative and and practice reform to ensure that the work that we are doing happens within an enabling, um, environment. So two, um, core laws that need to be passed as a matter of urgency: One is the witness protection law and the other is the, um, national law on, um, legal aid. Two laws that will, um, help us deal with some of these, um, systemic, um, issues, but also, um, laws that will ensure that, um, there's witness protection, that people do not merely abandon cases, that you can sustain a case for a certain, um, period while we, um, you know, while we, um, collect and and gather the witnesses. So that is the the starting point, um, for us as, um, as an organization.

The other is, um, to emphasize is to emphasize the need for for mediation. I know that some of our officers in the district that we serve are court annexed mediators. Let's encourage, um, the courts to also annex institutions, um, like feder. We can offer support in mediating family matters so that this, um, 26% or these 42,000 cases that we are looking at are resolved at at, um, at mediation level. As my colleague already mentioned, FedE has been intentional on, um, training and and capacitating culture leaders, um, what we call the informal justice sector. While there's a bit of controversy around this, I think the Kanyamuno case attempted to to explain that this the informal justice system, um, that is is is restorative in nature and the formal justice system that is mostly viewed as adversarial, that the two can exist alongside each other. So let's invest, um, some, um, you know, um, time and and and and money in capacitating the culture leaders so that they handle some of these cases at community level. We've seen it work in Randa through the I think they call them mediation, um, committees. Um, they are facilitated, they're given air time, they've been given, um, health insurance, and they are finishing some, um, cases at, um, at that level.

And then there are the nonconventional methods where we we we should, um, encourage courts to allow self-representation. Sometimes even the lawyers, the legal aid service providers are not able to represent everyone that comes through our gates as legal aid service providers. But if we coach them, if we coach the witnesses and tell them what to say in a fairly simple matter like a maintenance matter, I'm sure that they they would be able to represent themselves. But we've had some magistrates, some judges that are not quite agreeable to having some of our clients, um, represent themselves. So, um, briefly speaking, those are some of the things that I quick I can quickly, um, think about. Of course, there's the proverbial budget issue. There's the the elephant in the room that the budget that is ascribed the judiciary is not sufficient. Um, we have to continuously lobby so so that these courts that you're saying are empty that you know they they are they are you know we recruit judicial officers so that, um, we have functioning courts to address the backlog issue. It comes with a hefty budget, but it is something that needs to be done because access to justice is a core…

Julius, you had told us about the 1,00 um 500 cases judges have to handle. The fact that in LA, for example, the judge was away and and there's basically no business happening in the court at all. You you simply go there to meet the crack and get a new date in hope and expectation that you will be had. So, so, so Julia, like Lilian has given us all these proposals, but she has also stressed out to us a problem and a problem that disproportionately affects the poor, that hits the poorest the hardest, but that affects everybody, rich and poor alike. People are stranded in a justice system that's not delivering justice. Mr. Jo, how do we bring justice back into business? Over to you. Poorest the hardest, but that affects everybody, rich and poor alike, people are stranded in a justice system that's not delivering justice, Mr. a joke. How do we bring justice back into business? Over to you.

Very disheartened and very disappointed with the justice system, especially in the area of vuli because of the backlog. You find that a case that would ordinarily take a year takes 10 years. In the process, the litigant has sold off his land in most cases women to finance the lawyers, and so they end up landless and they may not get justice. Now that is the problem of case back law because you cannot sustain continuous adjournment without hearing. These people do not go to offices; they do not have any uh clear sources of income, and all that they resort to is selling their land which is the only asset they have. Now that is how unfair case backlog is to uh this region; for women it is even worse. We all know that in this region where we do agriculture, it's the women who do the work, and if they in court all the time and you travel several kilometers to the court, stay until late. I remember there was a day when, um, Justice Gigi was still in Bulu and he had 30 files for that day. Tell me when you can leave that courtroom. So they they spend the whole day, and that in a way has an effect on their livelihood because they come and spend the whole day in court. Some even have to travel a day before, sleep with a relative, attend court, maybe again sleep with that relative and go back. So the impact is really huge.

Now there are factors that to me greatly contribute to this problem, and one of them is language. We have stuck to English. When the magistrate knows the language, the lawyers know it and the litigants know it, but the proceedings still have to be in English. A half day of hearing will take 2 days. Leave alone the injustice of poor interpretation because most of the clerks do not come from that region. We end up with a backlog. We have transfer of judges. A judge is transferred; he has to leave the file and uh it takes many months for the new judge to acclimatize himself or herself with the new file. He has left it in the middle of the case. Sometimes the file has to be sent back to the sent to the judge who has been transferred. You end up losing 6 months. We end up with backlog. You have the issue of u let me put it into perspective. A judge up country works for roughly about 8 months in a year. The first month is on his annual leave. The second month is on courtification. The third month is conducting a criminal session somewhere else outside his jurisdiction. The fourth one is conducting plea against sessions. And now we have gender-based violence sessions which have been introduced in our system. So you find that all those mans are gone, and so we end up with the backlog. In the meantime, no substitute has been provided to help uh this person who is not at these stations. So, we end up, um, with very little time for these judges, and yet they are extremely few for a population of 45 million Ugandans. You cannot compare the ratio of judges to the ratio of MPs. It is just uh even ministers we cannot compare the ratio of judges to ministers, and that is uh is is disturbing.

What I think should be done: one, we need to have specialized judges, and that is one of the reason why we have backlog. Some judges are appointed from the DPP, and they come to the bench and they fear to handle civil cases. Others fear to handle… Um, Justice Bukama who is now the chairperson EC was very honest. He said I need to get my footing in civil procedure. And so he would ask the lawyers to prepare adequately, and within a short time he pulled it off, and he was one of he gave us one of the best decisions. So I think we need to have specialized judges in a division who are not transferred. Justice Mubiru did a wonderful job in Gulu, notwithstanding that most of the cases are customary land cases. But if you look at his appeals, appeals from his judgment to the court of appeal, most of them are on customary land, customary land cases, which is a challenge because in order for you to understand the custom, you require a bit of time, and some of the lawyers are not school in the custom, and that becomes a challenge. And so having judges who are specialized station in a station and they are able to hear cases without transfer and disorganizing, um, the cases would do us a great justice, even avoiding uh the case backlog. Having the litigant express themsel freely where the judges can hear and, um, record directly, not taking that much time in the recording process would also uh do us a lot of, um, justice, and then appointment of judges is also in my opinion something which will do us a lot of uh justice if we appointed magistrates who are competent, we will not have this many updates in the high court on your challenges. So for me I think those are some of…

Judgment or not, and people really said that as well to laid and denied it denied it against justice that you see one can wait for judgment for years because the office has said that the judgment will be on notes. So when it's laid, you are torn between pushing for it or waiting until it is delivered. Because if you push for it, you think the officer may be biased and deliver it when it's not in your favor. But maybe if you would have waited for it, it would have been delivered in your favor. If you if we wait for him on on his own initiative deliver. So I would like have to have your comment on this trend of judgment or not because most judgments when they saw not it will take another one or two years being delivered, and then within that time you don't know you're not sure whether you should really push for it or you should just avoid and wait until it is delivered. So what do you usually do when you feel the judgment has been to be delivered and how do you manage that anxiety and probably I know I'm I'm getting the question is very many at once but I need to add those so that you just answer them as at a go and as a renown change maker and trainer who who is really so cover profession what reforms are really most urgent to increase capacity in our justice system and also restore the faith in our judiciary because people seem to have lost faith. Thank you. Thank you very much. Really most urgent to increase capacity in our justice system and also restore the faith in our judiciary because people seem to have lost faith. Thank you. Thank you very much.

My humble opinion is that we don't require much reform. Most of these issues we already have them as guidelines or on our statute books. On the issue of delayed judgment, the policy of the judiciary is that judgment things should be delivered after not more than 3 months from when the case has been closed. So you the the judicial officers really have no justification to delay judgments. The only reason is there's case backlog and arrest. I want to be very clear on this that most of the delayed judgments are avenues of corruption. A judgment is delayed so that the litigants can come and see the judicial officer. That to me is unacceptable. There is no way. And a good judicial officer will tell you the best time to write judgment is when you've just had the case. But if you've waited for two years, then you get to write the judgment, your recollection of the case is not as good as immediately after the case. We have had very issues issues of grave injustices where judicial officers retire and they are left with very many cases which they have not written judgment. It is really not acceptable. I would think to do that it should be implementing the policies of the judiciary. The judiciary has got very good policies on all these matters. So why wouldn't a judge stop hearing the case, write a judgment and then proceed with the other cases? I don't understand that. But to me I think the delayed judgment in itself and you end up getting another judicial officer write a judgment where he has never seen the witness. He has never heard the the case and he gets to write a judgment. Now tell me how he's going to reflect on the demeanor of the witness. How is he going to credit the witnesses in his judgment? That in the end results into an injustice because you are only dealing with somebody's notes uh not yours and in most cases they don't deal with the courts they deal with the hand on notice. I have had a case which was adjuned about six times for judgment and I said I will not come back to this court for this uh judgment [Music] t judicial officer is retired and uh I believe that will not occur to any other person. So for me that is a a big problem and we need to tackle it concertedly through barb bench approach that if the case is deal for judgment let the parties have their judgment and they move on um the cases may not be as bad in Kala as they are up council and so we need to have a candid discussion between the bar and the bench to make sure that they resolve that. The bench need to have a candid, honest and accountable conversation to make sure that they stick by their policies of writing judgments within the period that they have given. There is no need you hear in many cases not delivering justice deliver justice and allow very sensitive…

I imagine you're handling a domestic violence issue, probably yeah someone's being taken and then they say matter pending judgment and then one year later 2 years later judgment has not yet been delivered. How do you handle those clients who are having sorry facing gender-based violence and then having to wait for judgment for one or two years like how do you even deal with their anxiety and maybe what would you propose would be done better to better deliver justice to such clients which you handle? Thank you. Some of the the two years like how even deal with their anxiety and maybe what do you propose would be done better better deliver justice to such clients which you handle? Thank you.

Um, thank you. Some of the the proposals I've already mentioned. We for example lobby that, um, gender-based violence cases be fast-tracked through the system and and that is what my colleague MJ is is is talking about that you know, um, judges have been assigned special sessions. What we are saying is that it is not a new assignment but rather what we are telling them is to look through their cause lists and ensure that gender-based violence cases because of of, um, the time-bound, um, nature of the case that they are prioritized, that if you have a cause list you have, um, cases, um, prioritized on that, um, cause list. So it's not a new a new a new assignment. You're not moving judges from one court to the other and as a result causing backlog because you've assigned them, um, special, um, sessions, but rather that judges, um, handle all these cases as they come through, um, their their courts. Of course, um, in in so doing then we are handling less anxious clients because what happens that, um, for example, FedE also works with uh we do some kind of watch brief sessions. So you help the prosecutor or the investigators to assemble the witnesses. You put them together, help to organize the files as a as a watch brief, um, lawyer, and in that way you work together, collaborate with a DP's office to ensure that, um, you know, that that justice is speedily delivered. So that's one of the approaches that we have used because we are not blind to the the case backlog. We are not blind to the fact that, um, um, judges are overworked. That is an an honest conversation that we must have. Yes, there's, um, inefficiencies to a certain extent, but there's also they are very, um, greatly under-resourced. The courts are under-resourced where you're supposed to have two judges, you have one judge. So that is, um, one of the approaches that we have used.

Of course, the other is, um, to lobby through the different platforms that we are given access to for appointment of judges in in in specific courts. For the longest time, we had only one judge in Luo. We've had an office there for the last, um, 10 or so years. And what we've been lobbing through the various platforms is to appoint another judge so that the case backlog as it was then is, um, is reduced and it is better handled, and I'm happy to note that that has been done. But what we are also saying is as an institution is that we need not lobby for some of these things that the planning departments within the judiciary within the various departments ought to see the gaps and plan and budget for them adequately. We are alive to the budget constraints, but this is a a key you know access to justice is key to unlocking it's a bedrock of actually all the other rights. So we must ensure that that part is, um, working well. The other approach we have used is to knock at the judges' offices at their chambers and and bring our clients' matters before them and say this client you know this is the the issue that matter has been in the system for so long, and in so doing in having an an honest conversation with them. Some of the cases have been prioritized, but it's very dangerous to rely on goodwill. All of these best practices, the efficiency must be institutionalized so that no one has to knock at another person's door to ensure that justice is, um, is done for their clients. But for legal aid service providers, it is a a lived reality. I was, um, looking at the existing laws at order 33, um, of the civil procedure rules that that, um, you know, um, provide for how an indigent person can file for a case. And it's in itself, um, you know, a barrier. There's there's a process. You've got to make an application. There's got to be someone that sits and considers. So perhaps to have these some of these laws either amended or done away with so that we deal with a new law under the national legal aid law that can speak to the urgency of of, um, of of legal aid, the need to prioritize these cases within the system, and to perhaps as a as a parting short for this specific, um, question to revisit the remation that is given to, um, people that handle, um, cases for people within the criminal justice system. Let's, um, improve that so that we can have more qualitative and committed…

I had very many other questions, but I think when Mr. Jo talked of that we need to have specialist judges Mel say that we need to have mission-based judges. So before I I give the microphone into how to handle that bit we have one since 7 p.m. Now it's clocking to…

8, and it will be justice if we don't get to hear from the audience if they have any questions. So, any person having questions, you can request to speak; you can share it in my inbox or in the comment section. We will be addressing them, but in the meantime, let's first have Mr. and address his mission—best based judges because on the judges and for him, read it at mission-based judges. Thank you. I'm not—I'm not sure the rest like that, I think, but but I think I think what we what we are seeing is very clear.

Section uh 18, I believe, of the Judicature Act says that um uh says that the judges shall, having regard to the business disposed of, shall—I think the language is—so far as is reasonably practicable and subject to vacation—sit continuously for the trial of civil and criminal causes. And you've just heard that there's a month for leave, a month for vacation, a month for session, a month for plea bargaining, a month for gender-based violence, and then uh and yet these all these sessions—the court should, as much as is practicably possible, um the court as much as practically possible sit, and and the judges are overwhelmed. They, having all these sessions, they're having to do all these things, and they're completely and totally overwhelmed. So my question really is that even—is that even a question? What what what we've been arguing in these judicial service conversations over the last few months—there's a certain reserve force of the judiciary called the lawyers, and that the lawyers are provided for in article 1422 of the constitution. It allows, in the event that the state of the business of the court so requires it, allows for lawyers to come in and help.

Now, we hear the poorest are hit the hardest. Poverty is increasing. Economic challenges are stagnating. Perpetrators are being um encouraged. The court is adding double injustice to victims despite the best effort of judges. I mean, you're talking about Julia said there's a challenge of backlog in in AI. I guarantee you, as a person who has traveled this country and the courts, that there's a challenge of backlog in the entire country, and we we're having a backlog—sensors coming up in—so the idea um Julius and that we've been pushing is this—we've been saying, can't lawyers be brought in on a very temporary basis to sit down, hear these cases and get out? And and what's your your view? They don't become judicial officers for life; they don't get the car, they don't get the bodyguard, they don't get the pension, but they come in, they do the business of the court because the business of the court so requires. Maybe I'll start with Lilian, your take on our article 142 solution. Requires—maybe I'll start with your take on our article 142 solution.

Um, Edison, I I agree with you. um If we bring in—I think there's been an attempt to bring a a retired judges—but if we bring in what um Julius called the specialized lawyers that are have sufficient knowledge in a particular area, bring them in for a season, give them specific terms of reference and and have them at least clear their case backlog so that we do not have to inherit cases from a previous year into the year following that when you enter a year—perhaps the presiding judges enter—I mean, handle the fresh cases and then have these um what you're calling the the mission judges handle the backlog. So we would then assign these mission judges the 42,000 case backlog that we inherited for the last um financial year, have them clear that, divide it amongst whoever it is that would have been recruited and then um let them go and then bring them back to handle that the the backlog again. So for me, this is—it's it's definitely something coupled with all the other um you know um proposals that we've given of keeping—first of all, the cases out of the main um judicial system. It would work. I suppose the only rider for me is um the the the you know the article is clear that this will be done—that the president has got the powers to appoint these um um judges where um person fails to perform their test. So so where they are unable—not fails. So for us to unpack what unable means—the inability versus the case backlog. I think if we package this and and make a good case, we would be able to evoke the the the the powers of the president through this article 142 and and and have this appointed—someone is vacant where someone is unable to perform the functions of that office and where the state of the business of the courts of judicature so require um I don't—So I don't know Julius what you think. For me, I find—I found this to be extreme forward thinking in 1995. Someone in 1995 put a provision in our constitution that we have never used to face a challenge that we are facing in such a massive way and um that many other countries even adopt. So I don't know Julius what what your take is on on on 1422. Okay.

Yes, Lilian, before Julius comes in. Yes, I I just wanted to to make a correction or perhaps correct the impression that you know when we talk about plea-bargaining special sessions that we must allocate a different month for each one of these um you know um activities that we are mention—that we have mentioned. It is possible that a judge can schedule plea-bargaining sessions. Of course, bearing in mind that we need to make them gender-responsive and survivor-centered—schedule um so that a a part of their day—like we diarize our work—that their diaries have components of plea bargaining. They've got components of special sessions so that it does not look like they've got to move from their stations to go and handle special sessions, cuz we are saying that is not necessary.

Let every issue we've had on these conversations that has come up quite intensely, million is this issue of plea bargaining—as you've as you've seen—we've quoted the section of the Judicature Act—I think section 18—which says that the court shall hear as as far as is practicable civil and criminal cases from day to day—basically, not in sessions unless it's not practicable—but now this issue of plea bargaining, which has come up—many people who've come on this space, many lawyers who have come on this space are very skeptical about plea bargaining, and the argument is that because of backlog, because of delay. If the average time someone is spending on remand is 5 to 7 years, even 1 year—if you spend one year on remand and they bring you a plea bargaining deal, some people, it has been argued on these places very strongly that this plea bargaining system seems to be adopted from a foreign jurisdiction without proper understanding. In the United States, for example, there's a time limit on how long a criminal case can remain within the system. It is within that time that you can plea bargain. Here, if they can hold you for 5 to 7 years and then come to plea bargain with you, the challenge many people have is that the plea bargaining has become what someone called judicial hostage-taking. That there's a ransom. You are held until you can agree to serve some form of a punishment for being accused, and that people—especially people with less means—are opting for plea bargaining not because it's a very successful system, but because in fact it is a perpetuation of injustice. I don't know what your take is on that. I agree with you for other reasons as well, but because in fact it's the perpetuation of injustice. I don't know what your take is on that. I agree with you for um for other reasons as well. Um One, we as feeders, we do not find it survivor- you know, it—we don't find—first of all, the whole plea bargaining um session, it does not quite have the rights um human rights approach to it. So you find that people are not—they don't have sufficient explanation on what is going on. We've had clients in in in Luzira that say they just came and told us, you know um this is what is happening. They don't explain the the process to them, but they are meant to sign for things that they have not adequately been explained to. So that is one. It's not—doesn't have a rights um based approach to it. The other is that because you're kind of—you know, the end goal is to decongest the system. You get these people out of a system, but without putting due consideration to the affected persons. If it's a GBV case, the person who was raped, there's very little consideration. It's now that after we kind of agitated and we um had a lot of conversations with the judiciary that the the process was changed a bit to make sure that it is um you know that it it puts the the the the feelings—it puts the right of the person who was violated into consideration as you're negotiating with a perpetrator. So um that is beginning to come through. So yes, it is important, but we also found it was um justice at that time was to consider the rights aspects to it so that there's actually a form of justice that is delivered even in this plea bargaining session. So and and and the timeliness of it is critical because someone can't wait a a victim of rape cannot wait for 7 years. Then after 7 years you tell them that no, we negotiated and this person has been given 7 years, and I don't know—they had already served X, Y, and Z. So they—it had very little—but I have to also um say that some of them make sure that our courts hear civil and criminal cases day to day and that people who are under the judicial system—becomes a judicial service—that that our courts start to serve the public, and one of our ideas, as we've said, is article 142, clause two, which provides for three things: where the office of a judge is vacant, where for any reason a judge is unable to perform the duties of his office, and where the state of the business so requires. Someone pointed out last week—actually, I think it was the ULS president who pointed out last week—that uh this provision even takes care of a pandemic—in case people went into a judicial conference and they all got COVID, you would be able to bring in place immediately mission-based judges. So I don't know Julius what's what's your take on this? Thank you very much.

In case people went into a judicial conference and they all got COVID, you would be able to bring in place immediately mission-based judges. So I don't know Julius what's what's your take on this. Thank you very much, Ellison. uh To start with uh plea bargaining, as a lead practitioner, I really support uh plea bargaining. For the first time, I think prisoners reported that we have more convicts than those on remand, which is a good thing; however, the challenges remain still again because of backlog—many people fear that their cases will take long to be heard, and so they go for plea bargaining, and they're convicted and they go home after serving. So it is still has many challenges, but that should not discourage us. We go improving on the system. I really congratulate the judiciary for that initiative. Having said that, with all fairness to the judges and the judiciary—not all backlog is caused by the judges and the judiciary. The advocates are to blame, and the litigants are also to blame. And so we need to address it using a multifaceted approach. Not only focusing on the judges because we—advocates—sometimes we know the reason why we file cases, and also the litigants sometimes file cases for various reasons—that is why they seek the many adjournments. Sometimes it's not the judges, and we need to be fair to them. Structurally also, we need to be fair to the judges. I do not know of anyone sitting on the bench who is less than 45 years of age, and we all know that by that time age has caught up. There are various diseases—the body is giving way—and so they have allergies, and given the workload they need to balance. We also have a problem of not implementing fully what we conceive. We conceived the idea of uh mediation in 2003 and was rolled out to all the courts in 2013, and by 2019 we had abandoned it when we started at the commercial court, and I was one of the pioneer mediators. This was a collaboration between judiciary and advocates. We did not get paid for it, but our rate, if you check, was 30% success, meaning we reduced the case backlog by 30%. But along the way we abandoned it. My colleague was talking about Rwanda. You go to Rwanda, they benchmarked here. They are doing better than us. You go to Botswana, they benchmark here. They are doing better than us. In jurisdictions where we benchmark from, about 95% to 98% of the cases are resolved on mediation. So we need to fully implement and avoid uh giving up very shortly after we've come up with very good policies. Just to um comment on the GBV sessions. The criminal sessions are more than the GBV sessions. In fact, the GBV sessions are of recent. They are not that old, and so it's just a subset of the plea bargaining and then the hearing of the cases before the judges in the high court, and now it has—I think it has also gone to the magistrate courts. So the criminal justice system is wider than the GBV cases.

On article 1422, we need to stretch our mind. Before the 1995 constitution, we had acting judges. Under the 1995 constitution, we've had acting judges. In fact, there were consultations whether Justice Benjamin Odoki could be appointed as the acting chief justice. Several judges were appointed on an acting capacity. Justice Remy Kasule was appointed on an acting capacity in the court of appeal, constitutional court after he had retired. So we have precedence of appointment of retired judges in an acting capacity. What has not been tested and what has not been done is appointment of lawyers, which I think it is a very good proposal that you have made, and it should uh be tried by having these lawyers appointed. My colleague has already—the bulk of the cases are carried forward in the upcountry cases. I mean, in the upcountry circuit or courts, you find that about 25 to 40 cases are filed annually, but the backlog is a lot, and so if we can have lawyers come on a temporary basis because article 1422 says they can be appointed for a limited period or for an open period until it is revoked. So in this case, we could appoint until the case backlog is dealt with, then they go back to their private practice. Of course, all this is at the advice of the judicial service commission to the president. So in my opinion, the engagement should be with the judicial service commission to do the recruitment and advise the president to appoint this. The issue has always been cast—um—allowances—that it is difficult to support a judge. As I said, when we started the mediation process, we we did it voluntarily or gratuitously without any pay. So they could negotiate with these lawyers that a certain amount—not the full entitlement of a judge—be given to these lawyers to do this work, and once they complete they retire to their practice. Many of the lawyers are really affected by this case backlog. Many of our banks are affected uh by this um backlog. If you recall the formation and the founding of I think it was um ClientLex—that they felt that uh the the arbitration was not serving them well, and they came up with a solution. So I think we need to engage the judicial service commission and ministry of finance so that we can see and get a moderate budget to support these people, and they do the work. Um I am also increasingly seeing senior lawyers take on state briefs in upcountry courts, and so I think uh this is something which can be worked out, especially between the executives and the judiciary because the bulk of the case is carried forward. Usually when you get stuck in a jam, you have to get a traffic policeman to come and clear the traffic, and then the traffic will continue. Normally that is where we find ourselves as the judiciary. We now need policemen who will clear the traffic so that the traffic should be moving normally. Assuming a judge had only 25 cases, wouldn't he be able to hear one case on a day-to-day basis? The same statute book says for somebody on remand you should be brought to court every two weeks, and the case must come up every month, but that doesn't happen. Sometimes it takes two months, sometimes it takes more. So I think that is a very good uh interim measure to resolve this problem of backlog. We get lawyers of integrity; they are appointed, and then we do—they do the job—but I think we need to have our—read some few comments and one question from the audience—I think one comment from Mr. He says, how I wish this public engagement would continue. When you listen to Mr. Julius, you discover that no court is safe where we have lost as a country. Why can't we explore an alternative which is mission-based judges? I think that then another question I've got is from—actually I've got a question from two people, but it's the same question—it's coming from—this is Job and Simon; they're wondering when are we voting our commissioner—the service commission—cuz they saw today people were being sworn in as prison service commission—Yeah, we—what is happening—like how far with the cases relating to this voting? I think they are now ready just to vote, and they're wondering when are we voting because one question coming from the same two people—I don't know whether they're in the same space—are even wondering why they have the same question, but let me have your take on how far is the—with the voting—when are we voting? We saw people—we saw people today being sworn in the commission—where where does this leave us? Thank you.

I think that question is for me. Yes, it is for you. Yes, it is for you. And as I said, this was from Joy and Simon. I don't know whether in the same space, but it is for you. So maybe before I answer the question from Joy and Simon, I allow me to thank Lilian and Julius for for for really taking their time off at short notice to come here and help to develop—to develop—and to really raise the level of the conversation we are having within our legal spaces—to to really put it in the context of practice and to put it in the context of people; to show that it is not just an issue about lawyers, but that justice is about people and not just about affluent people, but about all people, about people who are being hit hard and and and also for the work that they do on the front lines of the work that they're doing every day to make sure that justice becomes something that is realizable for the vast majority of our people. So, thanks a lot, Lilian and Julius. Of our people. So, thanks a lot, Lilian and Julia. [Music] Thank you, Ellison. And thank you to our listeners. Thank you very much for your time. I do appreciate Ellison. Thank you for having—Thank you so much.

Now, to that final question which I have gotten: when are we voting? Actually, I think what people are asking is, Ellison, when are we voting for you? And um the answer to that question is soon. Today, the application by the Uganda Law Society uh against some of the orders issued by Justice Musa Ssekaana came up in the court of appeal before a single judge, uh I think, and they have been here and they had that application for 2 days—I think yesterday and today—and certain documents need to be filed by the end of this week, and I think we shall be getting some direction from where the court of appeal needs us to be. Personally, I was present in court, and the sense I get from what I saw in court is that soon and very soon, colleagues and friends, you are going to vote for—vote for me. Soon and very soon, nobody's going to stop our reggae. Soon and very soon, we are on course um to go. But I think also ultimately, I like the imagery that has been set out in this conversation. Imagery of the—there's no traffic police officer, but there's traffic at a roundabout or at an intersection, and everybody is trying to pass and everybody is stuck, and the backlog has kept us stuck. The state of the bar relations has kept us stuck. The position we're in has kept us stuck. But I am confident that we shall move forward and that nobody shall be able to stop our reggae.

And uh, as we end this, I think for those who are asking, you said it was Simon and Simon and Simon and Joy. I want to assure you, my friends, the time for voting not only is coming, but when that time comes, when that moment arrives, I think it is important that colleagues should ask themselves the same question the inddehaticable Mr. asked in that timeless African song.

Please, thank you so much for joining and from all of us here to all of you wherever you are. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night.