MISSON BASED JUDGES OR MORE OF THE SAME?

Minute. Okay. [Music] Okay. Okay. [Music] Okay. Okay. E e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for for for for the issue of spe spe it goes down to 24%, 23%, or 25%, depending on the time that you do this. But in actual numbers, the cases rise. I think we had um the at the time you're talking about, we had maybe 177,000 cases in backlog. 19,000 cases have gone up, went up to 30 something thousand cases in backlog. We then had 2024 report, 2023 report; we had 42,000 cases in B, and the recent opening of the new law, the Chief Justice gave us a figure for 45,000 cases. Now, statistically, the Judiciary said this is actually a reduction; statistically, more cases were filed and and therefore the way statistics work, but actual numbers back went up. In actual numbers, the manpower needs of the Judiciary at the end of last year, the higher Ben was operating at a 50%, at a 50% um shortage of manpower.

When you look at the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court, and the Jud says if we have this number of Judges, there'll be enough, but the truth is there'll never be enough because the economy keeps changing, very many business activities keep happening, the population keeps growing, technology keeps advancing, disputes keep increasing as we as we tra as we trade differently, as we dispute differently, as the economy grows, as the population grows, it is only only natural that the rate of filings in our courts are going to grow higher and higher and higher. So the solution there for us be one that understands that we must do everything, but we must understand that the case backlog is not going to go less; it's going to go more. At the end of this year and early next year, actually we're going to have an election. Election means that there are going to be election disputes. Election disputes mean that constitutionally the court suspends the other work they're doing and go and listen to the election disputes. So are we going to have a situation where we're bringing in more judges just to hear election disputes and leave the rest of the people hang out to dry?

And so the issue therefore of backlog is a serious serious issue; it's also a constitutional crisis. The Constitution says that everybody shall be entitled to a fair and speedy trial before an independent and impartial tribunal. The fact of the matter is that right now we have judicial decisions which are saying I'll try and hear your case quickly. I mean, speed of trial is no longer does not does not no longer seems to be a right, yet it is a right, a constitutionally guaranteed right. The framers of our constitution to courot a famous man give us a check, and in that check we are supposed to demand payment, and our payment is supposed to be a speedy trial. But it has for for far too long, the bank of justice has been bankrupt; they are bouncing our check on a speedy trial. You go for your speedy trial; you're guaranteed a bounced check. A bounced check under our laws is a criminal offense. Justice is committing an offense to the people who are seeking it by bouncing the check and not being able to deliver to them that fair and speedy trial that the framers of our constitution promised them.

I I just wanted to get back into the the the problem itself, and you hinted a little bit on it, which is that the total number of cases filed averagely, we now have a quarter a million cases filed annually, which means that the judges, whatever they do, they must be able to hear at least a quarter million cases if they want to beat backlog; that's like the solution to it. But I also I'm keen to understand the economics of cases stuck in court. Everyone keeps throwing round a number; what's the actual number of the amount of money stuck in our court systems because we failed to resolve this? That's a good question. The Permanent Secretary of the Judiciary issued a report, I think at the end of last year. The Per Sec Judici issued a report at the end of last year, and he said that um 44 trillion Shillings M was stuck in the Commercial Court. He just said the Commercial Court; 44 trillion Shillings were stuck in the Commercial Court um last year. Now, just to give that a number, according to the Bank of Uganda, I think the total loans and advances ballpark figure given by all 22 commercial banks in this country is 34 trillion. So more money is stuck in the Commercial Court of Uganda than the money that's out there in the banking system being lent to people. According to the same report by appears to the Judiciary, 10 trillion of the 44 trillion is coming from banking disputes, so that is 10 trillion of the banking money; it starts almost at a 34 trillion; that is almost a third of money in our banking system is also stuck within the judicial processes. So right now we have more money stuck in court than there's out there in the banking system, and a large chunk of what is in the banking system is also stuck within court. That is an economic challenge. The Judiciary um the Judiciary is not must not be looked at as a cost center when it comes to the delivery of economic growth. The Judiciary is a fundamental vehicle for that delivery. Right now, because of the cost of litigation and the high cost of of borrowing disputes in this country, Ugandans who borrow money pay a lot more interest than people elsewhere in uh I think there was a recent infrastructure report which showed that uh Egypt, Ethiopia are borrowing much less than Uganda and Kenya, and the biggest problem in Uganda and Kenya, even if you lend the government money, is people think their money is going to be stuck up in court. So borrowers are being are being charged a lot more; businesses are therefore charging customers a lot more; there's a K on effect in the economy that is serious, apart from the fact of money being stuck there, but our national ratings, our everything is being held up by the fact that we can't solve this problem. And meanwhile, you need to understand judges are sitting on a thousand cases a day. Yeah, judges are actually working; it is not that we have a backlog scenario because we have a large chunk of Judges who aren't working; we have a large number of Judges who are working their socks off, but they are working in a system that is simply not delivering to their expectations because they get back th000 cases a day. We also have a health crisis by the in the Judiciary; only we don't have the actual numbers, but if someone actually did a study of the do of the judges who are applying to the medical board for treatment abroad, you'll be very surprised by the Numbers; you'll be very surprised by how many judges have to step off cases because of their health, and the reason why they're having those health challenges is because they're working 16-hour days in highly stressful environments because we are not able to deliver for the people who sit on the bench. So right now the system isn't working for those who are serving it; isn't is working for those who are using it; it isn't working for those who need it; it isn't working for the general economy. The thinking that brought us there is well and good, but we have to broaden that thinking, understand the challenges are going to grow, and the challenges to the people are also growing. Thank you, Ellison, for that um just maybe for introduction, this is M makab chai, and thank you very much for everyone who has tuned into to the space today.

Alison, this issue of case backlog is not a new one, and I think for the last two weeks we've been discussing it quite um interestingly. My question is, the Judiciary has been creative; I think they have used alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration. How have these Alternatives not supported the efficiency of the Judiciary? Why haven't the numbers in case backlog been reduced, and why is why do you think that the approach we are proposing in this particular space will provide maybe a better alternative than what the Judiciary has already done with using things such as ADR and making it even mandatory at one point before you proceed with any case, you'd have to go through mediation?

There is no question, Mary, and thank you for your question; there's absolutely no question that alternative dispute resolution helps. I I don't want to say it doesn't; it absolutely does. If people can solve their disputes and avoid the long haul, they open up space for other people who need to be before a judge at the same time. It's always cheaper; it's even constitutional; in fact, in the the Judiciary is mandated by Article 126 of the Constitution to ensure that in the resolution of disputes they give peace a chance. When you go for a judgment, sometimes victory is very hollow; sometimes it's better to have a merry draw than a clear win. And so, to the extent ADR is not something we're discouraging; ADR is something we're absolutely encouraging, but there are things which need to give us pause. The Judiciary, for example, is very proud, and as are the prosecutors, of the plea-bargaining scheme, and a lot of people who get in I think we have some incredible results from plea-bargaining, but sometimes we must ask ourselves, is it because the average remand time is 5 to 7 years? Is it because someone is spending one year on remand? If you spend one year on remand and someone comes to you with a plea bargain, are you are you is is a system ransoming your justice? And so, while plea-bargaining may look successful on the face of it, we need to understand is it that people are actually opting for this because they have given up on actually getting justice and they're saying, I've been here 2, 3 years; how long can I stay? And an offer has come for me to plead guilty and go in a year or to plead guilty and go now? So is a plea-bargaining method doing that? How do we protect people? But But ultimately, ADR works. Not only ADR, there are many steps that need to be taken; increasing judicial officers, using technology, we need to turn the sit a situation; we need to stop our courts from being a building and turn them into a service. Never again must we hear an excuse that a judgment pended because the court premises were closed for one reason or another when these judgments can be delivered electronically, when hearings can be had electronically. You can't tell court users in Imara or court users in in Gulu that that appeals from your area have been delayed because we we've not found time to have a Court of Appeal session come to to Kabale or to Arua for the whole Western Region or to Gulu for the whole Northern Region, yet their Lordships could have conducted those appeals by Zoom right now. Technology has to be important; ADR is important. The solution to backlog, we must fight backlog like a war; we must attack it on all fronts. If we don't attack it on all fronts and think there's one particular front that we work that will be a mistake; we must attack it on all fronts.

You make a very fantastic point on attacking it from all fronts, and I mean many of those fronts have been open; the for example, the appointment of justices has really gone up over the last; it's not yet up to to the standard we want, but the number of justices being appointed is has gone up; the number of cases that are judged per day has also gone up, so that on those fronts they're open, but you're making a third new and maybe not new but a fundamental case for quote-unquote mission-based judges. What's that?

Thank you, Raymond. Article 142 of our constitution provides for how judges will be appointed, and Article 142, clause 1, provides that a judge shall be appointed by the President on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission and the approval of Parliament. Article 142, clause 2, provides for certain scenarios where the office of a judge is vacant, where they have vacancies, or where the business of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court, or the High Court so requires, then the President may, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, appoint judges in a in a temporary capacity. So what happens in 1422 is that if the business of the court so requires, the Judicial Service Commission advises the President to make appointments; those appointments are not subject to parliamentary approval. In other words, what we are saying is the Judicial Service Commission needs to activate what the framers put in our constitution in 1995, and idea whereby people are brought in for a mission, not as full-time judicial officers, not no pension, no bodyguard, no car, no housing allowance, no perks of the high judicial office; just get in there, sit down, hear backlog and get out; get involved in this backlog reduction exercise. The Constitution has given us a way to do it, to allow for a quick appointment process for a short period of time to conduct a mission. So we are saying we have a problem of backlog; it is it is let's send in the commandos. Commandos are the members of the Uganda Law Society, Ugandan lawyers who are qualified already to be appointed as judges of the High Court, of the Court of Appeal, of the Supreme Court, and we are saying allow these guys to come in and finish doing this work, and once they've done it, you can't keep people waiting for justice because judges aren't available when you have lawyers who are available who could be judges who could deliver for these people. When you go into the election season and you stop everyone, and then you also have the other back cases, why don't you, in that election season, as you're conducting your election petitions, allow for mission-based judges to come on the side and clear the backlog which is there, like to do something that allows for the bar to participate in resolving this issue. We have incredible lawyers, competent lawyers, many lawyers out there who are willing and able to help, who will help serve and go back into their practice; they can go anywhere in the country; they're available and and you know this system works; it it has been tried everywhere; it's been tried in the UK; it works like Deputy judges in England; it works in South Africa, the ad hoc judges; it works in Singapore; in Singapore, I think they're called judicial I think they're called judicial Commissioners or something; it works in Malaysia; it works in the United States; everywhere on Earth where you have this huge population, huge demand for justice, the lawyers are always called in very temporarily; they hear matters and they go back into their chambers. It beats my understanding why we have not yet applied it here, but we have to apply it here because we're not asking we not reinventing the will; the framers already put it in the Constitution; it is there in plain and simple English, and the framers were clear: once the business of the court so requires, if the court is getting overwhelmed, there is no reason why someone should sit on a thousand cases; there are so many people out there who could help at a cost that is manageable. All the coming now for such a judge.

Thank you, of a mission-based judge. The law which provides for that judge is Article 14 42, clause 2, of our Constitution, and Article 142, clause 2, provides that provides for the power to appoint those judges. A mission-based judge, in my submission, is somebody who comes in for the sole purpose of resolving where the business of the Court requires, for example, which is on Article 1422 C, and they are saying that this is a person who you call in to participate in a commando raid on injustice; he comes in with a sole purpose or she comes in with a sole purpose of, say, a backlog reduction exercise. You know, right now, just think about it; right now we have what they call criminal sessions under our I think the Judicature Act; civil and criminal cases must be had from day to day, but the Judiciary is not able to hear many cases across this country from day to day, so they have what they call criminal sessions. A criminal session means that people who are charged with an offense in the High Court wait for a judge to be available and then for a session to happen, yet what we should be having in this country is day-to-day criminal trials. Someone can't hear you from November up to March, from January up to April; you you can't be heard because there's no judge, and therefore the High Court is organizing a session, and your case will be heard at what they call the next available session. That's an acceptable way of conducting business for victims of crime and for innocent people. Having actually sentences, remand is now a punishment; it's a sentence; it is that accusations have become convictions, and remand has become a sentence. And so what we are seeing is a mission-based judge would be able to come in and fill in the gaps for the other judicial officers; will be able to allow for the Judiciary to to move in and to deploy capability to fight against injustice, to hear cases and to resolve disputes; that's the primary work of our judicial system, to hear cases, to resolve disputes, to make sure that our people are not finding another method of dispute resolution that is illegal, but instead uh have trust and faith in the fact that when they take their case to court, it shall be had in a timely manner. So a mission-based judge, our argument for the mission-based judge is simply that Baba must start to reinforce the bench, and this is allowed under Article 142, Clause 2, of the Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, and if you look at I could have read the article for you, but I think maybe I'll just spare the time to do that, but the provision is extremely clear; it is in clear language; it is allowed; we haven't yet done it, and it is high time that we did it. Thank you. I could have read the article for you, but I think maybe I'll just spare the time to do that, but the provision is extremely clear; it is in clear language; it is allowed; we haven't yet done it, and it is high time that we did it. Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Now, for the past two weeks you have been discussing mission judges; however, most of the people who have received this idea have come to a fair conclusion that you are just repackaging acting judges, and well, I can go with them; we ease that acting judges which have been unsound. At this point, I like you to draw a clear distinction between the mission-based judges and judges, and this conclusion leads us to I leads us through the process of appointing substantive judges, the probationary judges and acting judges, and for judes clarity, read the provision of the Constitution. Article 1422 says, where the office of a Justice of the Supreme Court or a Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court, extremely clear, maybe a Justice of the Supreme Court or a Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court is for any reason unable to perform the functions of his or her office, or the Chief Justice advises the Judicial Service Commission that the state of the business in the Supreme Court, the President may, acting on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, appoint a person qualified for appointment, so appoint a person qualified for appointment as a Justice of the Supreme Court or a Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court to act as such a judge or judge such Justice or judge, even though that person has attained the age prescribed for retirement in respect of that office. 1423 says that a person appointed shall continue to act as a Justice of Appeal, a judge of the High Court or of the Supreme Court for the period of the appointment; if the period is not specified, until the appointment is revoked by the President, acting on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission. Article 143 sets up the criteria or the qualifications for appointment of judicial officers, and just 1431e says that a person is qualified to be appointed as a judge of the High Court um if he or she has been a judge, if she has practiced as an advocate for a period of not less than 10 years before a court having unlimited jurisdiction. Now, I want to now go back to your question: are we repackaging acting judges? In the Kabaka case, it was important to first of all set out what the law says, so the law says more uncertain terms that where the business of the court so requires, the state of the business of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court so requires, the President may, acting on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, appoint a person qualified for appointment. Now that appointment is different from the appointment under Article 1421 where someone is being appointed into judicial office permanently. Was this out was the Constitutional provision outlawed by the Constitutional?

Court in the kabumba case, the answer is certainly not. The kuma case dealt with a different kind of Judge, a judge provided for in our regulations, in the Judicial Service Commission regulations. The regulations—and I'll come into that—the regulations um provided for different kinds of Judges. I want to go specifically to regulation 19 of the regulations, the regulations, regulation 19. If I could just read it briefly, and I'll come back and explain why kabba is different. Under regulation 19, the Judicial Service Commission May advise the appointing authority on the nature of appointment to be made, such as substantive, acting, contract, temporary, or probation, in respect of judges or regist. And then I think regulation 20 um deals with probationary appointments.

What is important here is that under the regulations, the Judicial Service Commission was empowered to propose four types of judicial officers: a substantive judicial officer, a temporary one, a contract one, and an appointee, a probationary one. The appointments which were the subject of kumba's petition were people who were appointed to act as justices for 2 years, and after the 2 years they will then be confirmed as judges. And in fact, in kaba's case, they even took them to Parliament for approval. The issue therefore has been very clear: can the Ugandan Judiciary, in the current constitutional dispensation, have a judge on probation, being supervised, being watched, whose judgment needs to be clear to some person who, whose performance needs to be clear to some person, and to many in the Judiciary?

I agree the problem with that is that it affected the independence of the Judiciary because this person has a job that they are now applying for, and they are now on probation; they have to please those people who are appointing them. And so, at times they may be worried about making decisions without fear, favor, malice, or ill will because they are governed by this probationary issue hanging over their heads. So the BS kabba case found that that sort of appointment is unconstitutional. In fact, Justice madr, in his particular judgment, highlighted that there, not even they, not even the judges appointed under 142 of the Constitution, because first of all, they go to Parliament, they went to Parliament, but also more importantly, I think that his, she pointed out that um the Chief Justice didn't say the business of the courts are required. So that's, so so I know I've going into a bit of a technical answer, but I think it's important to set the distinction.

We are not talking about judges on probation who need to be supervised. No, no, no, no. We're talking about judges on admission, someone who comes in with a specific period for a specific purpose, play a criminal session, handle backlog reduction exercise, finish something. It's like a Commando raid, where you see it's like we're saying they, they are full-time generals, they are full-time commanders, they people always then they are special forces. We are saying deploy lawyers as special forces, let them come in, conduct a raid on Injustice and run back to their Chambers. Why is this important, and how is this different from what was in kabumba? In kabumba, you're looking at someone who's going to sit as a Judicial officer, who's going to fill up the position of a high court judge, but who's first being viewed, who's first being watched.

Now, of course, the argument for those who wanted to watch the judges was that if we give you this job and you end up being so useless, why should we give you this job for all this time, and then you prove to be useless? You, useless in the sense of unable to perform your functions, and that was the argument they were trying to advance. The Constitutional court, and the Constitutional Court not find time for that argument. We are saying no, we're not talking about probation, we're not talking about other forms of Judges. We are saying put people, put lawyers on Mission. In the UK, they called Deputy judges. He comes in, he sits there, he does his work as a judge, he finishes hearing a few cases in the commercial court maybe, and he goes back and he serves as a lawyer, as an advocate. There's, there's nothing peculiar about what you're suggesting. It hasn't affected judicial Independence in South Africa, in the UK, in Malaysia, in Singapore, in any place that has been deployed. It just makes sense; it's sensible. Either you deploy the huge Reserve that you have and make it useful, or you keep with your backlog.

Yeah, umis, maybe if I could come in here, and then I just want to look at the structural argument now, away from the legalities of it, which is that you have lawyers coming in from private practice and trying to solve this problem of case backlog by offering their services and rendering judgment. Would you wish for this to happen across all courts? Would you wish for it to happen at the high court, at the Constitutional court, and at the Supreme Court? And what would that prend for things like, you know, precedent when some of those lawyers have to argue under the same precedent? What would that prend for things like fairness? What do that prend for things like bias, where lawyers are traditionally biased with very specific, speciic types of knowledge, and they come on to the bench with the idea of furthering that knowledge and making it the, the kind of precedent that the country should go, should take? So the question I'm asking really is that because they don't have tenure and they're not going to stay for long, they can via the bench in any way that they want to take it. Do you worry that that would happen if these your commander lawyers went both for the high court, the Constitutional court, and the Supreme Court? The, the risk that mission-based lawyers would mess up with Jurisprudence.

We need to remember that the people who don't mess up with jurisprudence are going to be picked from, who they're going to be picked from the same pool of lawyers. Someone becomes a Judicial officer by serving at the bar. Some of them enter the Judiciary directly; others are, are picked from the bar. So already, if you're going to appoint someone, the law provides this person has to be qualified to be appointed as a high court judge. If I can be a high court judge, then that risk is already limited. You already have it, either it's already limited or it's already inherent, but it's present. The Pres of, of, of, of command judges, the mission-based judges wouldn't in any way affect the, wouldn't create a risk on, wouldn't create, would necessarily create a jurisprudential risk. That jurisprudential risk would only be created if, if the quality of the bar, as some people think, is extremely low, but let us say that it is, then that problem would happen whether you make them Mission based or permanent; it would, it would still be the same problem in my view. That quality is not as low as some people think; in fact, I think a very high-quality bar. The second thing is, can you go at all levels? I think we are more interested in looking at this as a solution to backlog of the high court. The high court has almost 30, according to last reports, out of the 405,000 cases, almost 30,000 of them are currently sitting at the high court. We have 12,000 pending appeals in the court of appeal, 12,000. There is absolutely a need for a solution, whether, whether it is ADR, whatever it is, there is a need for a solution. You cannot have an average appeal in this country taking 5 years; you just can't have it. You can't have people giving up on Justice. You know, you know it is very easy, because of these members, to have take criminal cases. Criminal cases are particularly worrisome because there's lot of justice and Injustice involved. Having an unsafe conviction in Uganda, with due respect, is easy, and then failing to get it challenged on appeal is easy, and then just giving up, just giving up is easy. The system is a system being wired to Justice, and all we are saying is let us have a Solutions-based approach to this problem. So yes, I wouldn't mind getting Judes in right now. Historically, we've used this approach, although we haven't used it for lawyers. I recall in the case of Major General David tza versus the Attorney General, Justice who was a resident judge of the high court was put on the court of appeal on the court to hear the matter. He was a resident judge in the high court; he went to the court of appeal; he listened to one case in the court of appeal, delivered his judgment in the famous decision, and then went back home to his high court job. Did the presence of a in any way affect the jurisprudence in the Constitutional Court? Absolutely not. And my contention is that if it can, if judges can do it, so can lawyers. Um, thank you Elis for that. I think I like the fact that my colleague brought up this issue of who are mission-based judges, and you've explained it quite well. You've taken us into the, uh, context of the fact that it's already in the law and everything. I think in the mind of any listener, they're wondering, there is no question that the business of the courts requires support, um, with respect to coming up with this creative ways of reducing the backlog. Also, you've emphasized the fact that these things are already in the law; would don't even need to create new laws to proceed with the appointment of mission-based judges. I think the question is why hasn't this been done up to today? Why don't we have Mission-based judges dealing with construction law cases, um, the 44 trillion Mission at the commercial Court? Why don't we have judges, Mission-based judges being appointed at this particular time when the Judiciary needs it most? Thank you. Thank you so much for that question, message. You know, you know the, the, the judicial system in this country has gone through a long history, and there is a view in some quarters that, um, lawyers, in many quarters that lawyers are, are actually a hindrance to the administration of justice, and that, um, the Judiciary should be Reserve what are called sitting tenants, and sitting tenants are those judicial officers who, who, who, who begin their career in the Judiciary, and that there should be promotions, and there should be fairness, and a lot of space is reserved for, for career judicial officers. So that's one of the challenges, but that challenge is very historical. If you trace back to the Ugandan, to the evolution of the judicial system in Uganda, and if you just started say from 1962, yeah, we have the high court, we have the court of appeal, and then after that you would go to what was called the priv council, which is the English House of Lords, because of the colonial system. Then you got full Independence, then, then at one point that was moved to the east African court of appeal, and then the East African Community of course collapsed, but then we had full Independence I think around 1967 where the Constitution, the 6 Constitution established the court of appeal. Now the judicial system at that time was that all the power was vested in the president and the Chief Justice. The Judicial Service Commission consisted of the president, the Chief Justice, the attorney general, and two people appointed by the president. That judicial system was completely locked to the idea of allowing, even contemplating the idea of people who are not part of the judicial system from coming in. Power was bed entirely in the Chief Justice, who was the chairman of the Judicial Service Commission, who was the head of the Judiciary, and who therefore had a lot of power. The 1995, then, then, then in 1987 I think was a constitutional amendment converting the Constitution, the court of appeal into the Supreme Court, but the difference remain the same. In the 1995 Constitution introduced a, a renew Judicial Service Commission that had the Law Society having Representatives, the Public Service Commission having Representatives, that removed the Chief Justice, and then you have these 2005 regulations, the on govern J Service Commission coming in, which, in my view very respectfully, are regulations written in 2005 but written from the 1967 Constitution. They reintroduce a lot of power and supervisory power back into the hands of the Chief Justice. They do everything they can to limit the power of the judicial Service Commission, and they try as much as possible to limit appointments to Career judicial officers. We see a strong push for sitting tenants. There's no sitting tency in our judicial system that we should be supporting. What we need to be supporting to understand is we have a choice between the solution as envisaged by the framers and the solution has carried out at the moment, and the solution as envisaged by the framers is clear. I've read it for you; it's article 1422. It is in no uncertain terms; it is absolutely, the English couldn't be clear, you can where the business of the court so requires, call upon people qualified to be judges, to be justices, to sit there and render Justice. If you take that historical perspective and merge it with a challenge we have right now, that the challenge we have right now is there are so many people who, even, even, even the reforms people bring when they say we need to remove lawyers from some of these small claims or remove lawyers, like lawyers are seen as, as the burgain of justice, and yet lawyers are actually the reserve force of justice that is undeployed, underutilized, over-insulted. You imagine a young lawyer in Uganda who, who produces his son today, and by the time he finishes that land dispute, his son is sitting P, like how, how is that acceptable? How is that solving a problem of land? Isn't that been creating a problem of crime, and people who are tired who see their land being encroached on by a grabber and they going to take the law into their own hands, and that law then have now to start the criminal case and have his client on 7 years of remand? That is just not acceptable. What we are proposing is let us stop this issue of assuming Justice is a privilege. Our constitution promised our people a fair and speedy trial, and this method of all these methods that people are proposing, including the method of mission-based judges, provide solutions to problems that exist and that people are going through in real life today. Um, thank you Alis, just on the, on the point you brought out on how that particular Clause is being interpreted right, right now, there's an interpretation that when they say appoint a judge, uh, the interpretation is that the person probably should be a retired judge or someone who is probably already doing a, they're already a judge maybe, but not a lawyer. So what is your opinion on that? The constitution is clear, anybody qualified to be a judge, that's the provision. To read anything else would amount to a mass Distortion of the English language, but it's the same problem I've been explaining to you, the idea of sitting tenants, the argument of the sitting tency which is, which has always been a conflict between the bar and the bench, where people think you should only sit here if you've gone through the H dranks, and that in fact the, the, the mission-based judge or, or the acting judge, the mission-based judge is that judge who must have already been a judge. The Constitution allows what the Constitution removed in the mission-based part was the age limit that exists on other judges. He said even if you're above the age, if you've reached the age of retirement, that means even senior lawyers who would otherwise not be eligible for appointment as high court judges because they have passed a certain age, yeah, can serve, but also means judges who have retired can be called back to serve. You see what we are proposing, what the argument that it only refers to judges is the sitting tenant argument is the theary belongs to those who get in, who are promoted through the ranks, who do what they can, who serve, and, and by the, this is an argument against career judicial officers. We need career judicial officers, but the bench is richer from the experience of the bar. What we need are career judicial officers to be on the bench; we need career academics to be on the bench; we need career lawyers to be on the bench. A judicial system that has, if I can quote an old supreme court, because I'm sure none of them still serves, so it would be good to use them as an example, a career judicial officer like Justice K, yeah, um, an academic like Justice Kanye hamba of the Supreme Court, a practitioner like Justice mulena, um, a practitioner like Justice Soko, um, a career judge like j s. That bench, because of the syes that you have academics right now, we have very good academics in the Supreme Court bench; we have career judicial officers; we have, um, career practitioners. The wealth that you get at the bar must be reflected at the bench. If the bench consisted only of career judicial officers, it would be poorer, not because there's anything wrong with career judicial officers, but because they lack the diversity of experience. The diversity we need at the bench is not just a diversity of identity; we also need a diversity of experience. There is nothing wrong with a lawyer who can qualify to be a judge sitting in to hear matters and going back to his chambers. That experience of what's happening outside and what's happening inside the courts will bring a wealth to the Judiciary that the Judiciary would be richer for. Thank you. You very fantastic pitch for this, and, and now in terms moving forward, people who have questions you can request, we will add you, and then you can ask your question, but as we get those questions from the, the, the public, I just want now to get into the active part. You win the JC election, um, you are a member of the JC, how does this work on day one of you as a member of the JC, how do we have Mission-based judges, and how do we remunerate them, um, how do we incorporate them into the bench, how do we assign them cases, what timelines do we give them? I, I want to hear the mechanics of it now. Um, thanks a lot Raymond. The, how does it work on day one? The members of the Ugandan society agree with me, they overwhelmingly vote for me to be the Nominee to the Jud Service Commission. They understand that nobody can stop reg, and we get in there. The Judicial Service Commission, under Section 27 of the Judicial Service Act, has the power to regulate its procedure by setting out regulations, and I'll would be proposing to the commission that we do make regulations for the appointment of Judges as Mission-based judges, and then where the business of the court so requires, if it's, you see what mission-based judges bring is numbers, yeah, you have, you need 100 judicial officers, 200 judicial officers, you can get the numbers to do it on a temporary basis, and then they finish their work and they go away. At the moment, a judge needs a house or housing allowance, a car, a bodyguard, a research assistance, a clock, I mean the fuel, a judge costs the treasury about 25 million Shillings each. If you then get Mission-based judges, yeah, that's the car by the way, if you then get Mission-based judges and appoint them, be able to Ser even at that package it will still be cheaper cuz you don't have that car because you don't have them for the full time that you have them because you don't, they don't cost you a pension. Although a Judicial officer retires at a particular age, he continues to earn I think up to 80%, if I'm correct, of his benefits for the remainder of his natural life. So even when you retire them early and have enough energy to work, you the tax spare continues to meet the cost. A mission-based judge has three, I think it's three quarters, he to ear three quarters, 75%, a mission-based judge does, you, you finish your mission and you're done with the taxpayer, you go back to your Chambers. How that works practically, we need to pass rules. In my view, the business of the Court already requires it. The fact that we have as at, um, January of this year, a statement when we had the actually just a few weeks ago when we have the Chief Justice addressing Us in the rule of lawyer opening of the new lawyer when the new lawyer was open this year, we were told by the Judiciary that there are 45,000 pending cases in the, in the courts, 45,000. The business of the court so requires those people whose cases are held in backlog have a right to a fair and speedy trial. So in my view, once the business so requires and my does we get, we get going and we start appointing these people. The terms can all be disc. What is important about the terms is under the administration of justice act, I think section 27 of that act, I'll need to check, a person who is appointed on such a basis is not entitled to a pension, for example, that, that is already out there in the law. No one can wake up and give those people pensions. You int to earn more.

Thank you. To the pension, so the remuneration is that even if you pay them at the same rate that you pay a judge, they would still be a lot cheaper in the long hole for the treasury. So what we asking—what we are proposing—is affordable. And by we, even proposing, if we stop appointing judges, if we have the space to appoint more and more judges, let us appoint more and more judges, but as the need arises, where the business so requires. We cannot continue holding on to these backlogs. We can't continue having a census after census and every time the actual number is growing and the percentage of backlog is remaining stuck. So either we did not carry out the reforms we said we should, or the reforms we carried out absolutely did not work. We need a solution to the problem that we are having now, and this is a solution that litigants, lawyers, and the public really require. And in my view, that solution is written in the black letter of the law in Article 142, where the business of the court so requires, the president, on the advice of the Judicial Service Commission, shall appoint a person qualified to handle that business. This is mission-based stuff. This is commando—this is justice in need—this is justice indeed. I, I, I, I don't know—my heart is not settled with the use of the word “Commander,” but I, I have a question here from a friend. Um, they requested that I don't mention their name, but they are a lawyer with senior expertise, and they asked, outside of monetary incentive, what other incentive would there be for lawyers with career track record, experience offering their services towards the ends of justice as mission-based judges? I—a brilliant question.

First of all, mission-based judges provide us with two interesting things: they provide us a pipeline of talent. It's very clear that when we finally do go to recruit actual judges, we could actually have seen potential talent, yeah, and people could be tapped on the shoulder. That's one thing. The other thing is that lawyers—lawyers give a lot—lawyers already are arbitrators. The decisions lawyers make as arbitrators are not appealable. You know what arbitrators means? It means that rich people already have this option. Rich corporations that are in disputes in Uganda already have an option to opt out of the traditional “let’s wait and see” system and appoint a lawyer to arbitrate their dispute. Here, the matter isn’t even appealable. Lawyers already serve as arbitrators. Lawyers already serve as mediators. Very—mere resources as backup, the Judiciary as mediators, sometimes even on a voluntary basis, by the way. Lawyers serve on the State Bar as—um—they call it State brief in criminal trials. Lawyers are already hired, so already lawyers are doing a lot in terms of public service. Lawyers are teaching the law in government institutions, yeah, full-time. Lawyers leave their practice to go and become professional assistants at LDC. Lawyers are already giving out much of their time. What does a lawyer who gets—what benefit does a lawyer have from being—apart from the financial? So first of all, there is the financial, and there’s nothing wrong with a system that’s paying lawyers, and paying lawyers in a matter that is cheaper for the economy, cheaper for the system, economically effective. It is good—it is good for lawyers to have money. First of all, you have to agree that point. But secondly, the experience of Judicial Service, the experience of rendering Justice, the experience of hearing the sort of disputes that people have, the knowledge of what it takes to actually sit—many times we complain about judicial officers without understanding what they’re going through—just that experience, that knowledge, that understanding, it will cause a better fusion between the—the bench. So we have a higher—so it provides a huge pipeline for talent that those who are recruiting officers can see that, you know what, this mission-based judge needs to actually have a full-time job. In Singapore, the Chief Justice of Singapore was a mission-based judge. He was a mission-based judge, and he was seen, and this said, you know what, this—we need to tap this guy on the shoulder, and he needs to solve the whole problem out itself. So there’s a lot that can be gained and a lot that can be learned from—from allowing lawyers to—to do this.

Take you back to the process for appointing mission—that can be learned from—from allowing lawyers to—to do this. Yeah, thank you. First, I would like to—first take you back to the process for appointing mission-based Jud—mission-based judges because this—from a lawyer—when you explain for appointing substantive judges, acting judges, and for mission-based judges, you seem to have—and discussing the asked question, doesn’t know much about—about the section but wants to understand the process for appointing the substantive judges versus the—for appointing acting judges and appoin—based judges. And in appointing substantive judges—judges, why is the process fled? Because from discussion, I understand acting judges also approved by Parliament don’t have to be approved. That’s the question from the audience. But now, for now, this is my question. Well, just—just about money and the—have benefit from getting money from that position, and when money is involved, I think—need to come in. So how—benefit from this because they don’t—quy judges but also need the money. So how they benefit from this idea? Thank you. The office of Judge—the one appointed under a substantive judge is someone who, once he assumes or she assumes judicial office, is there until they attain the age of retirement. So if you appointed someone say at 45 to be a judge, they can serve you for a good number of years till they are 70s, depending on the level at which you appoint them, or after they serve for that period of time when they have reached the age of retirement, they continue to earn three-quarters of the benefits of a judicial officer for the remainder of their natural life. So whether they are serving as a judge or whether they are retired, that is the substantive judge. In order for you to therefore breach a point where Uganda agrees to pay you from the time you start serving until the time you go to be with Almighty God, the idea is that you must be thoroughly vetted. So the process is that the Judicial Service Commission must nominate you—must say this person should be appointed—the president must appoint you, and Parliament must approve you. Because once you go through that process, you have to be subjected to the entire force of the state to look at you and say this is a person who merits judicial appointment. A mission-based judge, however, is somebody who is not going to be paid until he dies—is somebody who is going in to serve and get out quickly. So the form of the Constitution made that process lighter. The Judicial Service Commission looks at you and says this person qualifies to be a judge of the high court and can actually hear disputes and nominates your name to the president. The president can therefore appoint you. Now, if you’re going to be removed as a judge of the high court, needs to happen is a complaint will go to the Judicial Service Commission. The Judicial Service Commission will then determine if it—there’s merit—and tell the president who will then appoint a tribunal. The tribunal will then recommend your removal. You—the president will then take you back to Parliament. Parliament will then make a decision. That’s how—almost—it is very difficult to remove a person—you—as a judge. A mission-based judge is just removed by the—your time ends, or if you want your time to end earlier, the Judicial Service Commission can—I can ask for it to be ended faster. So the difference in these two is that one is really a mission-based—comfortable the use of Commander—know what keeps coming to my mind is this—um—this raid on—on Bin Laden. You know, some guys just came from somewhere, came and got the guy and got out. That’s the whole idea—that we must start raiding injustice—that injustice has taken a foothold, which has become a stronghold in our justice system, and lawyers are available to move and solve this problem.

How does it help young lawyers? First of all, just think about it. I give you the example: this young lawyer who finishes his case, who has a child and finishes his case when his son is going to do PLE, starts looking for a place in Buddo or in—uh—or somewhere else. A friend of mine doesn’t like church schools. Having justice delivered to him helps him faster. That’s one way. The other way is: right now, the average time—and young lawyers will advise me, Alfred, you—you—you—you—you have—you spend a lot of time on this subject, a lot more than me, and I—def—fact your expertise—what they call flight hours—the amount of time it takes for a young lawyer to make a name in their courtrooms is about 5 to 7 years because he doesn’t have enough judgments under his belt because of the delayed times that he’s taking—that will reduce. But thirdly, we can even—because again, we have a huge need for even lower-level judicial officers—magistrates. There’s a huge need for magistrates. Again, Article 148 of the Constitution allows the Judicial Service Commission to appoint them again on a mission-based basis, but that’s something we need to look at more deeply. But the whole point is this: there must be enough flexibility in the system for a young lawyer to understand that there’s some work to be done in the fight for justice, that there’s some accomplishment to be made. And in my view, this system allows for more room for young lawyers to rise and can be deployed across the breadth of our Judicial System, including where young lawyers can be appointed. You know, young lawyers are very many—young lawyers are so ambitious to serve on the Judiciary. A large number of young lawyers actually, in my experience, do want to become judicial officers. Many of them would be very happy to serve us in—in any capacity in our judicial system. And so we need to also look to activate 148 of the Constitution, which allows for—for—for a similar arrangement for young lawyers. Now this is getting interesting. I—in any capacity in our judicial system, and so we need to also look—activate 148 of the Constitution, which allows for—for similar arrangement for young lawyers. And now this is getting interesting. I agree with you—80% of young lawyers want to go to the Judiciary from the PLE advertisement in the last two years—at least 80% of—I know—failed. And now you suggest that under 148 there is—there—where they can also be appointed as probably mission-based magistrates or something of that sort. Could you just go deeper into it for the benefit of the young lawyers because I’ve never really—B—looked at that—that—thank you. At the moment, if you just looked at the numbers—um—if you just looked at the numbers of—uh—of—um—that—that are required for—for—for judicial—for the Judiciary, you need—I think at the moment the approved structure for—for chief magistrates is 160. 60 of those positions are vacant. We have 100 chief magistrates, and we—we don’t have 60. We have—um—I think we need—we have 20—we have 27 vacancies for magistrates, grade one. We have 41 vacancies for senior magistrate, grade one. I think the 27 for principal—we have 182 vacancies for grade one magistrates. 182 vacancies are needed right now. The judicial structure has 514 grade one magistrates, and the structure—approved structure of the Judiciary, but the Judiciary has only been able to fill 332 of those positions, leaving 182 vacant. So already you have vacant judicial offices, and one of the reasons that delays the filling of those positions is cost. It costs money—a lot of money—to actually serve the—the—the—the terms of service for grade one magistrates, senior magistrates, principal magistrates, senior principal magistrates, and chief magistrates. The terms of service have been greatly enhanced over the years, and so you—you find that you may not have the budget to fill out these positions on a full-time basis, but certainly that is the approved structure. But don’t we need more? If you think of this approved structure, the idea is that every—every place in this country—I think every parish—if I—or sub-county in this parish in this country should have a grade one—should have a chief magistrate’s court. Just think about how many judicial officers we actually require across the country. But there—there will certainly be more vacancies even on—on an acting basis or on a mission-based basis than there are those who apply. What is important is this: this opportunity exists, and we need to realize it. For many young lawyers—there are many things we need to do also in the appointment of judicial officers. We need to make sure it’s more transparent, especially at the lower bench. The real challenges—the transparency of those appointments. We need to make sure it is—um—it—it is more enriching. You—to become a chief magistrate, you shouldn’t only limit it to sitting tenants. You should also allow the bar to get in. But at the same time, there are certain positions where you can understand why you need career judicial officers to—to have some level of ring-fencing. But the idea, Alfred, is how—it’s not so much—we must deliver as lawyers to the public, because once the public starts to receive justice from the system, it will be better business for all of us. Oh, it’s so much—we must deliver as lawyers to the public, because once the public starts to receive justice from the system, it will be better business. Independence and obviously keeping judicial—keeping the principle of judicial integrity preserved. This—this idea of appointing mission-based judges—how, in your opinion, shall it enhance or—or not be something that affects the principle of judicial independence and the integrity of the Judiciary? How do you see this working together? I think the idea that a judge appointed under Article 1421—that that appointment therefore guarantees independence—is—it’s true, but at the same time it’s also—we have seen many people holding permanent judicial office without even a—even a—d—of—of independence. I think the nature of appointment would not necessarily matter in some instances. What I’ll tell you though is: let us identify the mission. If it is backlog reduction, we don’t—we don’t bring our mission-based judges to handle your more—we can leave all these bigger, complicated cases that require—where a lot of pressure—we can leave them with those who are always dealing with the pressure. You know, you don’t want a situation where you have a judge who is as efficient as a—as a pilot who is asking, “What are the people saying? I see no wrong in you,” but the people have—we’re not interested in that kind of judicial officer. A mission-based judge must be a judge on a mission. Independence—there—you can’t be independent and inefficient. Independence must not be an excuse for inefficiency. And right now, people are not inefficient, but the system is the one imposing inefficiency upon efficient people, and the—that is too high a price to pay for an independence that is even absent. What we need to do is to rescue our justice system, rescue our judicial officers, rescue our people by allowing them to have a more—we need to have a more broader thinking. For me, I think backlog is a challenge, and it is my view that we need to fight it like a war. We need to fight it like our people fight war. We need to fight it with every tool in our arsenal. We need to fight it like a—like—like the whole world depends upon it, such that we can deliver justice to our people. Because, like everyone knows, justice too long delayed is justice denied. And this does not mean that we are supporting an—a Judiciary that is not independent. Nobody wants a Judiciary that’s not independent—certainly I don’t—because we need judges who are able to deliver justice without fear, without favor, without malice, and without ill will. There are many ways to protect the independence of a mission-based judge. The Judicial Service Commission should recommend people who pass—who qualify to be appointed—should recommend people who would be—who would be very comfortable as judges already, but who, because of space constraints, are—are not able to be appointed. And those people will have to show their independence and their mettle while they serve as mission-based judges. But we can’t lock the door to mission-based judges on concerns that are frankly academic—that are theoretical. It is—it is—it is okay to tell people to wait when you don’t have cases that you’re waiting for. It is okay to tell people to move at a snail’s pace for independence when you’re sitting in an ivory tower. But we’re talking about people on remand for 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 7 years. We’re talking about 44 trillion stuck in the commercial court. We’re talking about the fact that many banks in this country are no longer lending—on land—do not consider our titles as sufficient security anymore. Yeah, and—and—and all that—they’re pricing good—good deeds to pay for bad ones—pricing them out of the market because cases are stuck. We opened a commercial court so that we could have commercial disputes resolved quickly in order to attract investment. We opened a land division so that we could ensure that land cases are fast-tracked. We have so many circuits of the high court—a Civil Division. Today, as we speak, there are two judges in the Civil Division of the high court—two judges that hear every civil case in the Republic of Uganda. How do you expect those people to be performing? Right now—right now today in that division, it will take you—you honestly be told that we’re not—we’re not fixing trials for cases which were filed in 2024. We’re first finishing 2021 even before they are promoted—the other two who were there—that was the position. How is that something that’s sustainable? How can—I—this be put on hold? What—what else am I supposed to do? Where else am I supposed to go? So for me, the independence of our Judiciary—it must be independent, but it must deliver. The Constitution says that judicial power is derived from the people and must be exercised in accordance to the wishes, norms, and aspirations of the people. I can tell you our people don’t want to wait 10 years. All right, you’re very passionate, and I have someone here wants to ask a question. I could introduce them as a senior citizen, I could introduce them as a senior lawyer, I could introduce them as a partner, but I will leave it to him to introduce himself. So I—I call him Chairman. So Chairman El Kanga, if you can ask your question. A senior citizen—I could—lawyer—I could—I have been listening to this series, so I—I call him Chairman. So Chairman El Kanga, if you can ask your question.

Oh, thank you for the opportunity. I have been listening uh to this series, and uh I think a good idea whose time has come is unstoppable—um—is that—is that what you say—you can’t stop—ring—I think this idea is unstoppable, and it’s a good idea. But I was looking at its implementation, and I was asking that the proposer should form—um—some kind of team—um—a task force that should help to enhance this and look at all the surrounding environment and circumstances, because there will be unintended consequences if this happens clearly. Um, these mission-based judges—we need the bar—so they will need people from the Attorney General, from DPP, they will need others from the bar to be before them. So we will need a task force also at the Attorney General’s office in order to meet the—the—the requirement of these new—and many—mission-based judges. There will be a requirement for security because you cannot expose these mission-based judges—um—to the public to make judgments without protecting them. Uh, there will be requirement for revision on the budget and finance, and—um—there will be, as I said, many unintended consequences which I need to be—to advise that you should look at them and see which—who and where and when—um—is it going to be presented? Do you want to—is the legal Committee of Parliament to give you more—moral support on the policy and implement what is already in the Constitution? Do you need the Judiciary support? Do you need a resolution of the bar from the UGA Law Society general meeting to support? Do you need the Judicial Service Commission only to do that, or you need them all? You need to mobilize public opinion—um—as a—as a requirement, because this is just not affecting the legal profession, but it is affecting the public. Um, and so—um—there are many questions which this very good idea has brought in my mind, and I think you need a comprehensive—um—holistic approach to solve this very urgent—um—kick—attack on injustice. Um, I don’t want to go on and spend more time, but I’m just thinking—we look at—

It's long time with a vision of practical implementation of this wonderful idea, and it must not be stopped now. It can't just be stopped at this type of conversation now. I think we need to adopt it and then find a way of getting it implemented successfully. And I just wanted to let you know that just as you are talking about, was the chief justice of, otherwise I'm very, very pleased he was the Chief Justice, and um uh Justice D, who is now at the high court, was on the Supreme Court down to serve our people, so this these people can ACC any way want. I really think that this is a highly idea and suici, do you want to respond to that?

Um, thank you very much. I I'll respond to it. I think the the first of I thank him for that question, dranga. I think the the the first most practical way that members of society can ensure this is done is by voting for me to as the UN representative on the Judicial Service Commission. The other way is our all secondary. The first one is to get the lawyers lawyer on board, but you know, you know, think about it. Under the Constitution, the high court has unlimited original jurisdiction. So what does that mean? That means any case you start in Uganda, you can start to the high court. You can see for 1,000 Shillings, you can you can have a case of to try that a slap. Yeah, the jurisdiction is original and it is unlimited within the borders of this country, but to solve the problem of what would obviously be backlog magistrates courts were created. Now just think of a magistrate. Magistrates don't have bodyguards; they only have court ERS that protect the court. Yeah. Mission-based judges are almost like the concept of M mag don't end the same that are and but the bu of litigation in Uganda is done at the level of the magistrates courts. If you looked at some of the numbers just from the magistrates Court levels, you will find that uh that in in uh in the year 2024, the chief magistrates courts completed 127,000 cases. Grade one magistrates courts completed 67,000 cases. Now by contrast, the Supreme Court completed 92. Yeah, so the the but the bulk of the filings were also done at that level. Yeah, were done at the that lower level. Just think of the terms of ser. So the bulk of justice is actually delivered in magistrates courts. The bulk of challenges we have come from the lower bench as well, but the actual delivery of service, the backlog situation in the lower courts is not even remotely near what it is in the higher courts. So the question is, can the mission-based judges serve just at the same level? Not at the same terms, they can serve at the higher terms of a high court judge, but do they need if a magistrate who handles all the cases doesn't need security, do we immediately need to give the mission-based judge security? It's a conversation we can have. In my view, this is a solution that is ready. This is like this is like a microwave meal. There are meals you buy and you put in the microwave. In in some countries, you go to shopping, you buy things for the microwave; it takes one minute to cook, or you can do M like like the real deal Oro. Yeah, you can't do those in the microwave. The mission-based judges we're simply giving it is a solution for now for saying the business of the court so requires now. I agree that we need to mobilize wider thinking and greater support. I agree that we need to, but I agree especially that this is an idea whose time has come, and I agree especially that nobody can stop ring.

Thank you so muchis, and I want you now to to make concluding remarks. We've really discussed a lot in this space. We we've touched a whole Chunk on KB. We've discussed the whole bit on judges, the provisions for them within the law. We've had a discuss on that. It's not a new idea. We've also looked at the history where it came from, the debates that have been there. We've discussed the practicalities of it, and people even asked us the questions around that. Now I'd like for you to make first concluding remarks, but also for those people who are prospective voters of the space, um, would you like to to make a final pitch to them?

Um, I don't know if I should have taken one last question. I see a person called Mark Specta. Do you want to just ask your question very quickly, and then Ellis also make his concluding remarks together with your question? Last question. I see a person called Mark Spectre.

Uh, thank you, raymon. Thank you so much. Uh, thank you, thank thank you, El, for providing a valuable space for continuous learning. We appreciate your insight on the appointment of mission-based judges, but however, I would like to hear your thought on how to address the judicial misconduct among these judges, which is also a mandate of the Judicial Service Commission, and specifically speaking like in case where the mission B judge is found guilty of misconduct, which measure would you prop for this for dising G, uh, considering that most of the time when you see it comes to the judg the maximum punishment is removal or dismiss for the of that particular judge from the bench. When it comes to the high court judges, you recommend it's a recation to the president, but when it comes now for this Mission judges, after all he knows after handling this particular Mission I'm leaving the bench, so what sanction would you prop for how you Mission based judges? That's my question to ELO.

Um, thank you, Mark. I think the the when it comes to removal of a mission-based judge, the Constitution is very C. They serve until the term is over, or they can be removed earlier, and the removal is a very simple process. When it comes to discipline, what you're talking about [Music] is there are various sanctions within the Judicial Service Commission regulations for judicial officers, the highest being removed. If uh there is in discipline with the mission-based judge, it's actually a much smaller problem because this is a that be removed easier and never brought back as opposed to a as opposed to a substantive justice under article 142 who can't be removed easily. Removal is as I've told you involves president, Parliament, tribunal, and Judicial Service Commission. So remov removal can be easier uring this person actually never serves again can also be well within the Mandate of the Judicial Service Commission and um other reforms provided that any disciplinary sanction is done in accordance with the law, subject to a fair hearing. I don't think discipline would be a very big issue among this crop. Just think of a person who has taken off the time off of his Chambers and who actually wishes at a certain point to be a Judicial officer. He's right now in a pipeline of talent; he's being seen; he's being gauged by the fact that he is delivered that he has written a 100 judgments in the time that he has been there. He he's at a very different level from someone who has arrived, someone who has been a career judicial officer and then becomes a high court judge close towards his age of retirement and may not have the same fire in his belly. M for me what is important is we get the ball rolling, is we hit it and we start it. This I can sure Mark is not a challenge for these people because if you have to remove them, you remove them. It's a lot easier to remove a m Bas judge. It's a lot easier to stop them from coming to the service. It's a lot easier to talk to them and warn them about what is required to be done, but what is most important is to get the bar to reinforce the bench in the fight against Injustice. There's no reason why right now in Uganda a speedy trial is is a is is a promise. Someone promises you that you know I'm going to give you a speedy trial. It is a right you should have already given me the Speedy track in everything that we are discussing. My right to be should not be one of them. You go into the commercial court and the judge says I'll okay you guys I can see you're arguing I not I your case I I'll hear it quickly as opposed to hearing it what you know a man a man or a woman you know will tell you that I got I went to court and I was going up country I found the judge leaving and the message the judge of ins sttion is that I was I'm going for what do they call official duties and the lawyer asks the clerk so his his duty is to hear cases so what other official Duty does the judge have apart from being here to hear my case? Those sort of arguments between the B the bench will certainly reduce if we have more judicial officers serving our people with speed, dedication, and efficiency. Now for the closing argument, me a closing argument. I to thank people. I know it's been a long evening. I know we've had these conversations [Music] repeatedly. We are we are not proposing ideas that are not implementable because they are already in the law. We're asking you to send us to a Judicial Service Commission that is already empowered to do what we're asking to be done. There are many people who are discussing many other things. People are talking about changing the structure of the Judicial Service Commission that requires a constitutional amendment. We're not part of that group. There are those who are talking about stopping judges from giving out particular types of orders, injunctions, or state orders, say that state order is unconstitutional. We are not going to sit there and determine how judges make their decisions because our Judiciary is independent. We are not sitting down and saying we are going to go into the Judicial Service Commission and um overthrow the chairman of the commission. We are we are not saying that we are rude. We are well known for our rudess. We are saying we are going into this Judicial Service Commission with an ideological purpose. How can we expand the use of lawyers in the administration of justice? How can we do it in accordance with the law? How can we do it in a way that is good for everybody and bad for Injustice, bad for inefficiency, bad for confusion? In my view, we need to change the culture of our courts being a building and they become a service. In my view, we need to deploy technology. In my view, we need to deploy the bar. We need to deploy the bar at all levels from the to the highest in our Judiciary because, as has been said by someone far wiser than me, this is an idea whose time has come, and absolutely nobody can stop ring.

All right, thank you so muchis. I like that you refer to the person as a person who's far wiser than yourself, but thank you so much everyone who's been listening to us. It's been a fantastic time engaging you on the space. Um, it's recorded. So immediately and you can play it back to this things that you didn't were not able to hear. Um, the spaces are continuing, so we still have a chance to quiz Edis on a lot more of the specifics of what he'll be doing. We do not know yet when the election will be due, but we also looking forward for the due debt. Uh, but for me to you and from everyone who's been hosting this, We Wish You a wait at least say one thing before we say good night. Yes, I I I always say to everybody who has joined us and I'll say it again today, good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. Good night. I sorry, that's fine. Go. Okay, so let's okay.