The State of Justice in Uganda.

I served in parliament. Oh, okay. Uh, Ellison, I was just saying that your introduction is like a pig being prepared for the slaughter. The knives are yet to come. I'm honored to be here. I usually listen anonymously in order not to provoke the host to say I have seen the minister online. Can he address the question? So I have to start by confessing I served with a relative of yours in the parliament. I was his campaign manager when we wanted him to go to Eala. Our plan then was for him to become the first speaker of the East African Legislative Assembly. Unfortunately, his own party fought him bravely, which was quite interesting, but what I remember is that he saved a motion which was about to fail. There was a motion in parliament to inquire into why the war in the north is not ending and what possible solutions are there. It was brought by Agria, Zachary, and a few of us, and the motion was about to be put to a vote, and the tyranny of numbers was about to be unleashed, and then the honorable Eric Karena stood up, and the speaker recognized him, and he said, "Mr. Speaker, we don't need to vote on this. Everybody is being affected by this war. Will you give us a few minutes in the lobby so that the movers of the motion and those opposed to the motion can have a meeting with the prime minister and we will come back and report if we get a compromise," and the compromise was got, and instead of setting a select committee, something which the majority didn't want, the matter of the inquiry into the war in the north was given to the committee on defense and international affairs. Now that is what we call statesmanship, focusing on solutions, and I hope all of us start thinking beyond our battle lines.

Now, I served faithfully as a project advocate of the Uganda Law Society, and because the war was raging, curiously, I was the only applicant for the job. I've never had such pleasure in being interviewed. In fact, it was not an interview. The honorable lady justice Solomon Baloon Bosa simply subjected me to some form of counseling, telling me not to be afraid. The law society would support me even if I was going to be in Gulu, and the salary was good. At that time it was $350, made me very popular at wedding meetings; I could at least contribute. Before that, I had worked with the Kabugo and company advocates, and it is Kabugo Charles who also paid my nomination fees for the parliamentary elections because my campaign war chest was a hefty 60,000 shillings. I had to close the gap with my wits, and then the traders in Gulu came in. I joined Makerere University from Namyango College. Ours was a very small class. Among my classmates are two Supreme Court judges, justices that is Justice Katherine Bamuger and Justice Monica Kajjirai, and justices of appeal like Helen Abulu and John Mike Mosesi, and many. We believe that the practice of the law is an extremely noble profession, and I still believe that Ugandan lawyers are among the very best worldwide. And they have distinguished themselves in many. Whether I should say, and the context starts with a question because the thread running through this topic is really the role of the state. We cannot talk about the state of justice without talking about the state. So eventually, we are going to have to talk about the character of the Ugandan state, and unless we are pretending that we are in the library. But if we live in the Republic of Uganda, rubbing shoulders with the 46 or 47 or maybe 48 million Ugandans, then we have to talk about the state. We ask what is the role of the state? And I'll mention four roles. The first is, of course, to protect our territorial sovereignty. That's for us. We are supposed to be rubbing shoulders with the police, most probably the police carrying batons or even just warning us, you know, not to misbehave and things like that, talking to us like good neighbors wearing uniform. So the first role of the state is that nobody should mess with our borders. Number two is to protect all the citizens from being molested by other citizens. In other words, to enforce law and order. No one should come and steal my property. Nobody should rob me. Nobody should beat me up just because they are big and so on. That's the second role. And the state should always be stepping in to stop that. And number three, the state also establishes the laws so that the dos and don'ts are very clear. Fortunately, we all know that laws are supposed to be written. Laws are not supposed to be people's opinions or the views of those who have power. They are supposed to be written so that they can be quoted. The other reason why the laws need to be written is because everybody needs to wake up in the morning and they are told the laws are still the same unless parliament has changed them. And then finally, settling disputes when citizens are quarreling among themselves as to whether the law is being applied properly or not, whether they are disagreeing about contracts. The state has that duty. Now, an answer to the question of the state of justice in Uganda must obviously start with the question of how good are our laws? Sorry, the space has ended. The space has ended. Your network has collapsed. Mine, the Wi-Fi is very unstable. I'm not on Wi-Fi. No, I am. It is first. Wait, is it? You need to start another. Once in a while the space just crashes because of their technicalities. So, let's try and just get another link and restart. Okay. Okay. About 500 people. I saw even before you started saying that. Oh, we are live on YouTube. Our space has, on X, has—we've lost our audience on X, but we are starting it again in a few minutes. You know, one time, as we keep saying, Elon Musk's space with Donald Trump collapsed. So we are not doing badly ourselves. And I think I'm starting the space now, but for our YouTube audience, thank you for staying with us. And, uh, yes, I've just started the space again. Yes, Mercy. Apologies, colleagues. We had a technical glitch, as I was explaining to those who are on YouTube with us. One time the space between Elon Musk and Donald Trump crashed. And so you can just tell that this is one of those historic spaces clearly. And, and I see the honorable minister has joined as well. So if you're just joining us, you'll forgive us. We had a small technical glitch, and this small technical glitch was caused by matters beyond our control. The space crashed on X. But those who are on YouTube and I believe TikTok are still with us. And as I had said, one of the challenges when you're having a historic space like the one Elon Musk once held with Donald Trump, these things happen. And I'm sure that you're all welcome to join us. I see many of the numbers are still coming back.

Colleagues and friends, we have with us the minister of justice and constitutional affairs. We had introduced him before, but just for the completeness of the record, the honorable the minister of justice and constitutional affairs, the honorable Noat Mao, is our guest today. The topic is the state of justice in Uganda. We have a number of questions for him for those who had not yet joined by the time we started. The honorable Noat Mao is an advocate of the courts of judicature. He is a member of the Uganda Law Society; he has served in the Uganda Law Society. That's where he started off. He was also a guild president of Makerere University, having won an iconic and famous election, I think in 1990, against the late brigade nobo. He was a member of parliament for Gulu municipality, having served for 10 years after defeating then minister honorable Gome. He was the chairman of Gulu district. He's the president general of the Democratic Party. I think he's been—he's one of the—is a Yale fellow if I recall. So we are very honored and privileged to have the minister of justice. Someone who has a deep understanding of the wheels of justice and how they move, who has served in them, who has served as a leader of conscience, who has served as a leader in politics, but who has a deep understanding of constitutionalism and law and is currently serving Uganda as her minister of justice and constitutional affairs. So we thank you, the honorable Noad Mau, for joining us. Honorable, before we got interrupted by Elon Musk's technology, you were taking us through the state of justice in Uganda. I am Ellison Karhanga. I'm joined also by Alfred Muyaka and Masi Chamutai Makabay. Over to you, honorable minister.

Thank you, Ellison. Thank you so much, Ellison. I apologies accepted, and I hope Elon Musk is hearing us. We are all now cheering Donald Trump as long as these glitches continue. I had already mentioned what we need to look at in order to deal with the question of the state of justice. And I based everything on the four key roles of the state, namely the protection of our territorial sovereignty, ensuring peace and security in the realm, making laws, and then the settlement of disputes. For purposes of this discussion, we have to talk about security. Are citizens safe? In all discussions, we are always talking about the dichotomy of state security and human security. Whenever we hear Ugandan citizens talking in conferences, they accuse us in government of focusing more on the security of the state rather than the security of the persons. Now, to my understanding, this security is actually indivisible because if the state is not secure, then there's no human being who can be secure, and you cannot pick and choose and say which one comes first. The security of the state is very important, and so is the security of the human being in the state, namely the citizens. At the Ministry of Justice, we often get a lot of complaints. We have a human rights desk which is going to be upgraded into a fully-fledged department. We get a lot of complaints. Members of parliament call us telling us about police high-handedness. For instance, a member of parliament may be holding an event, like the lady was holding a women's day celebrations in one of our islands, I think Kalangala, and then the police just arrived without warning and started beating up everybody and throwing tear gas. Then it is our duty to respond. And in this case, I called the inspector general of police because now when a member of parliament is complaining, the minister has to intervene. And then the inspector general of police says, "Well, tell the secretary general of the party to which that woman MP belongs to report this matter to the police standards and have it investigated." Then it is my duty to call Mr. Lubongya and tell him whenever we see cases of torture we are proactive; we call. Now it is important that these cases become the exception rather than the rule. So when the cases become too frequent, then citizens have a right to complain and challenge us to do better. When I joined the cabinet in 2022, I found that the cabinet had started a discussion on establishing a cabinet standing committee on human rights. It had stalled. So we resurrected it together with the office of the attorney general, and then we took the paper back to cabinet, and then cabinet approved our proposal, and we established the cabinet standing committee on human rights. The purpose of the cabinet standing committee on human rights is to deal with the powerful people. I give an example. One time we got a petition from fishermen. They told us that they are being terrorized on the lake that the UPDF is all over the lake. The government policy at that time was that the fisherman should stop fishing so that they don't take small fish. Unfortunately, the congalles love the immature fish. So we are fighting against the market. And of course, the army, they start with force and keep escalating the force. If you want to know the difference between the army and the police, the police start without force. For the police, force is supposed to be a last resort. For the army, it is force first, and they keep escalating it, and if they have nuclear weapons, they will even drop it at a particular point. Now the solution lay in calling the relevant ministers because the cabinet standing committee has got the relevant ministers. I chair that cabinet standing committee on human rights. The deputy chair is the minister of internal affairs where the police falls, and the minister of defense is a member of the committee. The attorney general is a member of the committee. The minister for gender, labor, and social development which covers the youth is a member of the committee. The minister of local government is a member of the committee. The minister of foreign affairs is a member of the committee, and the government chief whip also sits on the committee. An ex officio, the secretary general of the ruling party also sits on the committee. So in the case of the complaints from the fishermen, we engaged the security forces including the office of the CDF. The other thing was to go deeper. That's when we realized that the army is on the lake because the ministry of agriculture has not established the fisheries monitoring unit which is supposed to do the job. Now, in our country, the army often has come in to fill gaps. They do so obviously, but they do it militaristically. We have seen them filling vacuums in many places. When the ministry of agriculture and nads were failing the president's agenda, they came in as operation wealth creation. Now, like any army, when the army comes to fill a vacuum, they are easy to mobilize. They are very difficult to demobilize. It is not easy to say goodbye to the army once you have invited them. Anybody knows that? So that is one case that we got involved in, and I'm pleased to report that the complaints on the lakes have reduced. The reason why the cabinet standing committee is important is because we also have a political lens when we gave a report that the NRM virtually lost in all the districts bordering lakes. That was a red card. In that case, it is no longer about fish. It is also about a policy and actions that are undermining the legitimacy of the state right from Busia, Namayingo, all these Bujiri, you come to Ginger, all these Buik, all the way, all these areas around those lakes. So that is one thing that we have been able to do. The other thing which I would like to was having some initiatives of mediation, some kind of alternative dispute resolution. So the only thing I could sensibly do given our limited resources was to—because we believe that we earn our fees by bruising the other party. So we have to change our operating system. Now the judiciary has started changing their operating system, and they have been telling stories of intractable disputes being resolved when they are subjected to mediation. So immediately I made a decision to prepare a policy on alternative dispute resolution. Now government is quite slow sometimes, and though there are many civil servants, they are extremely busy. When you are outside the government, you actually think civil servants don't work; those of you who have ever been civil servants you know that actually you work, but the rumor out there on the streets is that you know civil servants don't work. The one thing I disabused myself of was the thinking that civil servants don't work. I actually discovered that these people really work very, very hard. So now I had to depend on external support. I contacted my good friend Francis Gimara, senior council, and my classmate Dr. Henry Onoria, and I asked them to start putting down some ideas towards the alternative dispute resolution policy which I would take to cabinet. We prepared some decent paper. Then I, when the Pepperdine team was visiting Uganda, I mobilized the attorney general to join a meeting because the attorney general is the chief fighter on behalf of government with the policy. When we reached the cabinet secretariat, they threw it back at me and told me, "No, there are some boxes that are not ticked. You need something else called REIA, regulatory impact assessment." Some so-called experts go and sit in a hotel and for about three or four days they answer some difficult questions trying to peer into all the corners that—it is actually a very good process; at that time I didn't appreciate it, and I remember calling the cabinet secretariat and giving them a piece of my mind; I told them off. I just stopped short of insulting their mothers. But eventually, when I realized that what they were doing was actually for the good of my project, I called back and apologized to them. That was Miss Katamu, the then deputy head of the deputy cabinet secretary. I apologized to her and said, "Forgive me. When I went for orientation as a minister, we were not taken through these things. Those who came to orient us were telling us how to hold glasses of wine, the length of our ties, and things like that." And anyhow, as I talk now, the policy has been approved by the cabinet, and we are now going to work on legislation. In other words, the mainstreaming of ADR is a very important move in ensuring that citizens can get justice quickly. The logic is simple. These cases are not cases about—goes to the villages telling villagers to come to court. No judge goes shop to shop telling people to come and file cases. The cases find them there. But many times the lawyers act as if they are parties also in these cases. As a court-accredited mediator, I have had some experience where I've found that lawyers can also be an obstacle to the resolution of disputes. So all of us need to forget certain things that we were taught in law school. With the dissolution of Kada, I hope to hear the feedback on Kada. But it looks like from the time we set it up to the time it was wound up, it seems it suffered numerous ailments. So now we need to work with the members of the bar who actually are the front line to see how that department in the ministry of justice can serve ADR better. As of now, I believe there has been a recruitment of someone at the rank of a commissioner to head the department of ADR at the ministry of justice. We have found that by collaborating with the judiciary and by retraining ourselves, and I wish to thank Pepperdine University for allowing 11 of us to undergo a course that led to the award of masters in dispute resolution of Pepperdine University, and I believe many members of the bar should take up that course when there's another set of enrollment. It is that qualification that allowed us to be recruited as court-accredited mediators, and even yours truly would go to the court, report to the head of the commercial court, then report to the registrar, and then he's assigned the room and files, and even though I'm a minister, I sit at a desk with two clerks, and then I start mediating cases, and we have been able to mediate some very difficult cases. To me, that is something that is in line with our African tradition. The chief justice says ADR is not actually alternative dispute resolution. It is this western system which is the alternative that our African system, which we call ADR, is actually the original dispute resolution system. Now we go to laws. How good are our laws? As I close because ultimately even when it comes to how disputes are settled, it depends on the laws. I think from my own experience, I have found that there's a lot of political undertones in a lot of these cases. I will frankly give my opinion about the BJ case because there has been a lot of drama around that case. When the Supreme Court ruled that civilians should not be tried in the court martial except under exceptional circumstances, I went to parliament, and the members of parliament told me the Supreme Court has ordered the release of Dr. Besigye. What is the minister doing here? Let him get out and ensure that Dr. Besigye is first released. First of all, as a minister, I cannot pick a phone and order a judge to release anyone. If anybody believes that a minister should do—

That, then nobody should complain when a minister interferes in other cases also. Whether they be land cases, whether they be criminal cases, we we we must have some some measure of respect for the boundaries. So I was kicked out of parliament.

I tried to explain to the members that look, there was no release order. Secondly, can's lawyers took a very long time to take the next steps that that the Supreme Court judgment required. They expected that the attorney general would be the one to extract the orders. First of all, the attorney general had lost the case. I've never seen a case where the loser of a case is the one who vigilantly goes to extract the order against himself. It it is the winning party who should go and extract that. For 2 weeks they were addressing press conferences until we spoke to one lawyer who was more levelheaded, I guess, Jude Jude Biamukama, and we told him why don't you help us because I was chased away from parliament, the minister of state for internal affairs was chased away from parliament, deputy attorney general was chased away from parliament, the speaker didn't want to see our face there, and they said go and tell the judge to release canobes. How how can a trained lawyer go to a judge even if you're a minister? So through Jude Biamukama, the case was brought forward to the next day, and that is how the transfer started.

The other reason is that the DPP is not the one who investigated these cases. So while many cases have now been transferred, but they are being investigated, the novel in order that somebody can prosecute. Probably the DPP is going to throw away many of the cases actually because most of the cases may may be bogus cases. So if we want the state of justice in Uganda to improve, there is there is a there is a need to to not go too much into the politics of cases.

There are many times I have called the NUP leadership and told them to activate the provisions of the anti-torture laws and the regulations which are actually very clear. But instead they spend a lot of time addressing press conferences and displaying the the the victims instead of actually doing division of labor. I I don't mind the drama of press conferences, but I think there should be lawyers and other legal professionals who should be fighting the cases and ensuring that the government is held to account. But now if you are both a lawyer and at the same time the politician, then definitely that is going to to undermine the the the enforcement of the rights of of your client.

As I talk now, I I know for a fact that uh this matter of the court martial is likely to go back to court. When I went to parliament and mentioned that in terms of percentage of cases actually the the cases that are in the court martial are not as many as people make them to be, but because of the prominence of those who are in the court martial, you would almost think every case ends up in the in the court martial.

Lastly is the need for backbone by decision makers. I really would appeal to those who are at the front line. For instance, under the prisons act, if somebody is visibly sick, you are not supposed to lock them up in a prison. They should go to hospital. Even in hospital, they can be under detention. Now it is the duty of those of us who are in these positions to assure these officers of ours that look, as long as you are acting within the law, you'll be protected; there is a lot of fear. I I can imagine for instance in the case of Eddie Muay, I think the the prison officer who received him perhaps knew what to do, but he must have been terrified: what will happen to me? He, instead of asking what will happen to Eddie Mu if I I I lock him up in this condition, instead he asks what will happen to me, and that's a question that all of us should ask. When I'm faced with a situation where the constitution is being abused or the law is being abused, I could ask what will happen to me, my job as minister of justice, my position, my salary and so on. But really the right question should be what will happen to these citizens who who are supposed to be protected by the law. Now for those who are Christians, you know that that is the question that the good Samaritan asked. Instead of asking what will happen to me in this dangerous corner on on this road to Jericho, he asked what will happen to this person who has been robbed and beaten up so badly. Now that that is really the question we should ask and and it doesn't matter whether you are NRM, whether you are NUP, but the bigger question now also is what will happen to Uganda? Because that question also people try to avoid it. People want to start fires. People want to to issues is everybody in the jud judicial robe is a member of Uganda law society. They actually they have IDs of Uganda law society. They they members of the bar first because without without a bar there's there's there's there's no bench. So I I want I want to put it on record that the standoff between the Uganda Law Society and the judiciary is undermining the enjoyment of rights in Uganda. It is undermining the normal functioning of our our justice system because it it is poisoning the the relationship. We we need mutual respect.

I want also to put on record that I have talked to the chief justice on this matter. I have talked to the retired deputy chief justice who I have asked to be part of mediating this this conflict. I have talked to the attorney general uh about this this matter and I do believe that the the dispute or the conflict between the bar and the bench is now ripe for for resolution. There was a time when it was not yet ripe for resolution. Everybody wanted to to prove something, but the the chief justice is retiring in a few months. I do not think he wants to retire when as head of the judiciary he is is at war with with with the bar, and then I think the bench also need to realize that they cannot use their judicial government to paralyze the normal functioning of the Uganda law society. For instance, now the law society has not elected their members to the judicial service commission. It's a scandal. The the lawyers are grumbling in the corridors about how judges are are being appointed and and so on. They need to be there in the new judicial service commission so that they they they can speak about the the issues that they they believe can improve the appointment of the best possible judicial officers.

That said, I remain optimistic as Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs provided we we put our country first and we don't we don't look primarily at at grandstanding. There in this country there is space for doing bad things, and there are many people who are occupying that space. We we we we we may not actually have the power to stop them, and I don't even think it is useful employment of our time to even try to stop them. But there's also space for doing good things. I think I call upon those who are committed to doing good things to spend their time occupying the space of doing good things in in this country and and and they they will be happier because the there are many people both opponents of the government and supporters of the government who are busy doing some bad things: corruption, uh murders, tortures, abuse of human rights and so on. They they have occupied that space. The rest of us let us occupy the space of promoting healing in this country, of doing something like this where you host an open conversation and people tell each other off as I'm sure I'm going to be told off very soon so that I go back and and and and become a better minister. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, honorable Noad Mau, Minister of Justice. Thank you very much, Honorable Noad Mau, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs.

Um, if you're just joining us, we are on our judicial service conversations hosting the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Honorable Noad Mao. um he has just um taken us through um the state of justice in Uganda and he has told us about how there are um many things he has dealt broadly and strongly on a number of topics and um I'm sure there are going to be a number of questions coming from colleagues and compatriots. Um honorable minister has talked about um a masters in dispute resolution and I think there are number of disputes that need masterly resolution. So maybe I'll start with Alfred giving you the first question um Alfred Maka and then the next question will come from Masi Makabay after you answer Alfred's question. Over to you Alfred. Thank you. I think he used almost 40 minutes to give to the state of the state of the nation as a whole and even now the state of the bar and the judiciary and so my takeways were at that point that we need to work with members of the bar to spearhead several things from the state especially with and I think regarding for many things the appropriate dispute resolution not even the alternative one talking about the set of the ban and the judiciary my only point was on the president of the base now almost in is in exile cutters of the judiciary and he has is about to spend his whole term of presidency in exile. So my question is what do you think led to this impass cuz even from the point he didn't speak at the annual law when you happening the lawyer and month later there are very many wars against him he's now in exile and you said this all these conflicts are ripe for resolution. So what do you think led to that impass of having him now of the judiciary and how can we resolve it faster faster and he comes back and serves the members of ULS from Uganda. Thank you, miss.

Well, Ellison, I was there at the opening of the annual law year and I actually didn't know that the chief justice had directed that the president of the law society should not speak. So in my utter ignorance I tried some shuttle diplomacy. Normally the president of the law society has a slot to speak and we must accept that leadership is a continuum. In in in school we learned about the the number line and all leaders fall somewhere along that number line. and president sead of the law society also has where he falls on the number line and and I think any society must make room for for that. So I called the senior technical advisor of the judiciary who is now justice Kawukha and we went out and I asked him why is the president of the law society not on the program and he said I think he has been removed so I wrote a note to the chief justice and to ensure that I don't give it to anybody who may fear to take the note. I took it myself and gave it to him. I had then made a proposal that since the president of the law society is already there and I'd even requested for a copy of his speech and I'd seen it and he was speaking like Seaka they would speak and and I think nobody would be surprised by what he would say. He was denouncing corruption, denouncing the slow pace of justice and of course talking about the the many de of the radical bar which I think can be absorbed by an audience of learned people. It is not like the skies would fall if if he spoke. It is sort of like those days when we had North Court, you know, whenever the president would come to Mcker, we knew that immediately after the Ugandan anthem, North Court anthem would be sung with without the permission of the MC and and we just factored it in rather rather than making it a big deal and immediately after the North Court and them, they would drum. They would then claim that they welcome the president of the neighboring state of Uganda and that the north state will guarantee his security and things like that. It all took about 5 minutes. So I then proposed that since the law students had brought an award actually all the law students in Uganda came with an award for the chief justice. Apparently, I didn't know how excited the country was about the ruling on on the court marshall. So, these people had actually elevated the chief justice to a a massive podium and then I proposed that the president of the law society should come and introduce this award. That was the only way I could see the president of the law society having some air time. Now that was totally rejected and later the chief justice gave his reasons. It was not a a good occasion. The we were only lucky that the members of the bar did not walk away with with the president. we it would have been very very embarrassing. So that that is exactly what happened. I I know there are a number of judges who who feel that really the relationship should be improved. Now I want to tell the lawyers that I don't think this is personal between the chief justice and the president of the law society. You must know that this is not the first time the chief justice has crossed swords with a third party. Remember when the prime minister stormed the the the the magistrate's court in Mango and even occupied the magistrate's chair and she was swinging on the chair. It was the duty of the the chief justice to step forward and you know draw a firm line and say you know what please respect the the the courts. Now we we have also had the chief justice clashing with the the executive on the question of bail. I witnessed an occasion when the president gave a speech and said, you know, I don't want bail for this kind of offenses. Why are you ignoring victims? Then the chief justice stands up and say, you know, please, my fellow judicial officers, continue giving bail according to the law. So we must not take this out of context. I think what makes this different is the kind of language that the president of the law society uses which according to my research is called radical rudeness. So the president of the law society uses what is called radical rudeness. In other words, using obscenity and insults as part of his arsenal for of fighting for change. But remember, we are we are dealing with people who are high ranking and they they have their own opinions of what they mean to the society. as no but ma I really don't mind what you call me first of all I'm also capable of radical rudeness I I can also say it in spades for every spoon you throw at me I'll give you a full wheelbarrow so so that way we are we are square but the chief justice is not likely to to do that so I think the the president of the law society should reserve the radical rudeness for certain people and not necessarily for for everybody as a way of deescalating the situation. Fortunately, that incident I don't think made anybody happy. No, no, nobody was happy. Even though the chief justice owned the decision but uh with within the judiciary many people felt like you know there are some things which are like cites that's why even when when when when when Ukraine when when you have Libya under attack the ambassador of Libya still has air time in the UN there there are some cases that have got to be accepted and and I it's a difficult thing but I don't want to say too much about it because there are many things we are doing in in in in the back room. I only want to press the members of the law society that is our duty to ensure that the members of the law society don't become a victim of of of of this fight. The institution has got to be protected uh against all odds. Thank you very much honorable minister. Uh if you're just joining us on this judicial service conversations, we are joined by the honorable minister, the honorable norad ma, the minister of justice and constitutional affairs. He's answering everything and anything justice and the state of justice in Uganda. And um on that issue of of of radical readiness, of course, honorable minister um just before mercy comes in, one of the challenges that some members of the law society have is that their lordships um struck down the laws of sedition, the laws of uh of of you know they said you can use offensive language against the parliament. They struck down the offensive communication act. You could they struck down all these laws but members of society are saying have they made a law for themselves called content that brings back offensive communication, criminal defamation, sedition. But maybe we shall deal with that debate later on. But that's one of the challenges members are having. They're saying um my lords, you're the ones who who removed these laws. So uh but Mi Makabay maybe before the minister takes on that maybe Mi Makabay you could um uh throw a question in. Yeah, thank you very much Ellison. Um, honorable, I think you've been very elaborate on this issue of the impassy between the judiciary and the B. And for any lawyer listening in audience, we have other challenges that have been a ripple effect of this impass. For instance, we have um no representatives at the judicial service commission as you have already highlighted. We have people losing faith in the ability of the ULS to stand independently and make decisions and have representation and actually own those opinions in different spaces. Um my question is what do you think are the next maybe five uh one two three four five steps that need to be taken for this issue to be solved in maybe two three months because it has taken over six months of um the president's time as a president but also it has affected the ULS and the people at the bar and just how things are running. So I would just like to understand what you think are the next steps to have this issue solved in two months for instance.

Well, Ellison, let me let me start with what you said. The the truth is, ironically, this fight is part of the decolonization agenda. This is really the the biggest irony of the whole thing. the the the Uganda Law Society elected a person who stated clearly the kind of president he was going to be heak they never hid anything I think even if he had said I'm going to slap the chief justice vote for me and and people would still vote for him and say okay now please go ahead and do it he he said that um that veneer of decorum is a a shield behind which a lot of injustice hides. He that that's what I followed your campaigns by the way contrary to what you people think I I'm around I I I I heard him blasting some of the people who are saying he's not a gentleman. He told them off. He called those ladies stiletto lawyers and so on and so forth. So I I think it is up to the the membership of the society to draw the boundaries of what this decolonization means. It starts with how the president of the law society dresses. He wears these Rambo boots with a trench coat and in 24 hours he has like five hairstyles. He can have cornrows, he can have dreadlocks, he can have whatever he he is generally presenting some kind of image of himself. Then he calls his followers rebels. In other words, the members of the law society voted for a nonconformist. So they wanted a nonconformist. Unfortunately, the a revolutionary approach to our conservative judiciary is not going to work. We actually need to reform it gradually and and I think it can be done. It it it is possible to to reform it. Ask me at the age of 26 I stormed Gulu. I wanted to be a member of the constituent assembly. I come from a very conservative society. A man who was 80 years old who never even printed posters beat us hands down because he said the constituent assembly is not for children and and my fellow youth many of them believed in him. So in the same way the the rebels need to rethink their strategy of of achieving their their goal. Now to Massie's question, the the the steps my my my first recommendation is of course to identify bridge builders. I know for instance Ellison is a bridge builder. He uses hard language. He's part of the rebels and so on. But somehow he can he can go and talk to anybody. the the the vice president has actually held the fort quite well amidst all all these these situations keeping the agenda of of the of the society alive. So the law society needs to identify bridge builders. Then the judiciary also need to identify bridge builders. I have already spoken about the retired deputy chief justice. He can be a bridge builder. I don't know after this Twitter space whether I will still be a bridge builder on on account

Of my statements about some of the colonial tendencies that the Uganda Law Society wants to demolish. But I am here; I'm the minister in charge of amending those laws. If you really want to amend those laws, if you want to shackle the attorney general and the solicitor general, you have to do it through parliament. If you sit in your meeting and you will be like the day I convened the general assembly of Makerere students and dismissed the vice chancellor, we are actually on record. We even signed a letter dismissing him. It was signed by Dr. Henry Onoria and it was a concurrent resolution of the guild representative council and the general assembly. Of course, the vice chancellor never left; he never went anywhere. It was only for our own happiness. So I do believe that there is a need to go back to the fundamentals.

Incidentally, the law society is being dragged into the arena of national issues. Now, it's not my place to tell the law society what they should do and what they shouldn't do. In Kenya, the law society of Kenya was a very big player in the kind of reforms that had to be done to democratize Kenya to a certain extent. The demands for a new constitution require that the law society can set an agenda for the nation, and for me, I can tell you that I have no problem with that. I think that is legitimate. But now the issue of insulting judges and calling them names, insulting the DPP, talking about her unmentionables, I think those are the things that push the law society away from—in a society where the politicians are seen as corrupt, compromised, and so on—there's actually low-hanging fruit for the Uganda law society to become a champion of these issues of the nation.

You remember the Nairobi Law Monthly published by Gitobu Imanyara was like the kind of pamphlets of Thomas Paine in revolutionary America. It acted like a kind of step-down transformer for difficult issues for ordinary people. It was a best-selling magazine. Everybody who wanted to know why a one-party state is bad and a multi-party state is better counted on the law society to do that. And I think even without talking too much about reconciliation, if the law society sets a new agenda and starts talking about these issues like transition, starts talking about national dialogue, the need for a national conference to talk about Ugandan issues about reconciliation—which you can already hear the president publicly making apologies—the law society can become an agenda-setting organization, and that will then give it a new image because, for now, the radical bar is perceived as dominated by foul-mouthed people who specialize in only insults and so on. And yet, ideally, the law society has got a lot of issues to talk about.

For instance, the laws that come to parliament. We need the law society to appear before these committees, and right now we are going into elections. We need that, and together with the law schools, they can give feedback on the judgments. That is why universities have law journals because when judges are reading their judgments, they must be terrified of the opinions of professors on their judgments. Right now, even in America, the Dred Scott case, I'm sure the judges who made that judgment are still crying over the stupid judgment they made, denying a slave who had escaped the slave territory the right to freedom by saying a slave is not a citizen of the United States and therefore cannot enjoy the rights of a citizen. So when it is the only warning to judges that you know you make a silly decision, we will hang it around your neck for the rest of your life. Even your great-great-grandchildren will still read about it. So that the law society can start setting a new agenda, and I think there's still opportunity for that. That is number two.

And then the last one is, of course, to mend fences with the seniors. The rebellion was against the senior lawyers who are seen as the conformist, comfortable lawyers with, you know, leather seats in their chambers and so on, while the other lawyers are having, you know, plastic chairs in their law firms, they are on borders and so on. Those are really the rebels. And now it is important to get back to some of the old guards and use them as bridge builders. That, to me, is number three. And number four is now me. I have not had a chance to speak to the law society president, but I do believe that there is no reason why he cannot return to Uganda. I can tell you it doesn't help the government to put Semanda in jail. I would advise against it. Occasionally we have such things, one time. Yes. My president of the law society, if you are hearing me, please come back home. I will come to the airport personally to receive you. I want you to come back.

Occasionally I get calls from people. One day some people were threatening to arrest Jimmy Spire. Now Jimmy Spire is a cartoonist. He was my supervisor for my master's degree; he supervised my research. I think he has published very many offensive cartoons about me. That has not stopped me from greeting him when I meet him because he's supposed to exaggerate every stupid thing I do. That's the role of a cartoonist. You do something little, he makes a mountain out of it. So somebody wanted to have him arrested. So we spoke on the phone, and we know the people who sometimes have those ideas of arresting people. So we tell them that what is the point? And in any case, if you arrest somebody, please hurry up, take them to court, bring the evidence, and have them convicted. I think I would love that kind of action. And there are countries that do that. But in Uganda, arrest sometimes is used as a way of punishing you before trying you. And I would strongly oppose that.

So I want to tell the members of the law society that you are the best defenders of the law society president, and if you make it clear that you know what, let's fight legally in court—the matter is in court; you cannot arrest me on account of this and that—and also contempt laws, for those who were talking about it, should not be used, or rather abused, the contempt laws, for like this man Arinite who wanted to strangle a judge—that is the height of contempt of court. You got your just punishment. Yes. He wanted to punish the judge. I do believe that we should note that the judiciary in Uganda had actually not been known for resorting to the contempt procedures. I don't know how many cases we have in Uganda; I don't even think they reach 10. And so they should be a last resort. I think we can guarantee the president of the law society will not be subjected to an arrest. In any case, the warrant has been suspended for the time being, and nobody should be spreading fears to him. I do not think it serves Uganda well to have a president of the law society in semi-exile. Thank you very much.

If you're just joining us, we've been joined and having a fascinating conversation with the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Honorable Nobert Mao. I'm honorable on that last one. I think there is actually an—there was a—what was stayed was a warrant, but I think there's another order which I think is being appealed, and I think some of the concerns some members have is that it takes about 3 days to hear contempt and 6 months to hear a state of execution. So there's a worry that the judiciary was weaponized. But on the larger point of what the law society should do, I can see on the call Mr. Roy Alexander, and last week we had Mr. Lule here, and he is the head of the law society or the bar in Masaka, and we have a challenge in Masaka right now. The lawyers practicing in Masaka have put down their tools. They have put down their tools because it takes one—they have one judge in Masaka—in greater Masaka, which are about 12 districts, which are almost the size of Rwanda, and they have a single judge, and this single judge has currently a docket of 4,290 cases, which if she listened to and disposed of five cases a day, their calculation is that it would take her 22 years to finish the backlog. So they have put down their tools, and the question I think which they're asking, and as minister of justice, they're really asking for some form of a solution for Masaka: how can Masaka be helped? What immediate-term solutions can be done? And can the government have some form of dialogue with the Masaka lawyers, if it's possible for the team—Mr. Seicha, Mr. Toncho, Mr. Lule—and the number of lawyers who practice in Masaka, if it's possible for you to open your doors for them. I think there was a request that we should ask you if it's possible to arrange and they actually meet with you and present their concerns because it is for them a livelihood issue; it's also a justice issue that's affecting many people. So I think those are two concerns. I think the first one on the president, I think many members of the society will take that very happily. We completely agree with you that there's no need for the acrimony, but also there's a concern of the weaponization of the court to settle scores, and some people are very worried about that, but also fundamentally the issue in Masaka as well, because Masaka is a city; it's a massive industrial place—it's a maybe not industrial, but it's a big business hub in this country; it has a massive population and millions of people in greater Masaka—and one judge. So I think the concern is what can be done and how can the ministry of justice help to resolve this standoff.

This question of Masaka starts with the deployment of judges. In one of my speeches at a gathering, I stated that we should have senior judicial officers posted upcountry. To the best of my information, the senior resident judge is away on study leave and has not been replaced. And the judge who is currently in charge of the station is a newly recruited acting judge of the high court. I think she's one of those who was recruited in the last recruitment. So the lawyers in Masaka are right to complain. Now this should be something to be owned by the entire Uganda Law Society; it should actually be a cause for the national bar, not just the Masaka bar. Now that they have laid down their tools, we have thought to discuss the context of these backlogs. The statistics I have is as of December 2024, the high court had over 81,000 pending cases. Out of these 81,000 cases, 27,000 are classified as backlog. That means they have been gathering dust for more than 2 years. Now nationally the statistics are that there were over 163,000 pending cases, and out of these 40,000 plus are considered backlog—again, meaning unresolved for over 2 years. The judicial officers are only 655. This delay in justice is the reason we are having this X space because everywhere citizens are grumbling. I was in Gulu yesterday where there's a pre-bargaining camp. Many people go to pre-bargaining because it is a kind of last resort. Somebody says, "You know what? Let me get this over with; let me know that I'm serving my sentence rather than just waiting for a trial that may not come in 5 years, 10 years." So if I can interrupt you there, for many people the pre-bargaining system has become the criminal justice system holding hostages. They do hostage taking; they hold you until you agree to a sentence. So that's one of the concerns; what you're seeing in Gulu is really a replica of everywhere. There are many good things to say about pre-bargaining. In 1995 I had the chance to attend a course in the University of Vermont together with the former president of Zambia, now the late president Kenneth Kaunda. We went there to study what they call the public defender system. Now an abuse of something is not an argument against its proper use. So even if pre-bargaining may be abused, that's not an argument against the proper use of pre-bargaining. I would still argue for pre-bargaining any day. But now in the context of these backlogs and the wheels of justice being very slow, it can become prone to abuse. It almost becomes like justice at gunpoint; you are basically being told it's up to you, either you accept or you rot in jail, as they say. So the Masaka bar has a cause, and I want to promise the Masaka bar that I will engage with the judiciary. It is not my job to tell the judiciary what to do, but I'm the microphone for the judiciary; I'm the one who speaks out when judges are attacked by parliament and so on. It's my duty to say, "You know, you're misunderstanding; this is what is happening in the cabinet." It's our duty to defend the budget of the judiciary and so on and so forth. So we have the opportunity to engage with the leadership of the judiciary, and the purpose is not really to serve the lawyers; the purpose is that they should serve the people. In any case, under the constitution of Uganda, justice is served in the interest of the people. So nobody should feel that if the judiciary responds, then they are responding to the lawyers. The lawyers are doing their best to respond to pressure from the people who are their clients. And now they have transmitted that high-voltage current to the judiciary by saying, "You know what, there will be no business in Masaka courts." As of today, the Masaka courts are actually very quiet; nothing is happening there, which is a sad thing because you have Masaka courts moving from Kalangala, Ssabagabo, Lyantonde, up to these parts here—about 12 districts if you include Masaka City. There are options; the law society has previously recommended pathways for acting judges. It is actually possible to bring in, let me call them special forces—for judicial special forces, for lack of a better word—they come in to assist. Now you find that Ugandans are being taken to support judiciaries in foreign countries to deal with backlogs in Seychelles and other countries, but we are not in a position to bring in judges. So we will recommend that the chief justice should consider appointing temporary judges to deal with these cases, and according to the brief I got from the law society, they have been engaging with people from South Africa, UK, Botswana, India, where there's a routine appointment of senior practitioners. In Uganda, we seem to be obsessed with appointing retired judges only as temporary judges to come in. But I think there are senior lawyers who can be appointed to dispose of these cases. So the concept that the law society of Uganda is proposing is called mission-based judges. In other words, they have very clear-cut terms of reference. If we can call judges to come and chair commissions of inquiry, why can't we get senior lawyers also to go to the judiciary to also help the judiciary with their problems? Because once in a while we got Justice. We told her our land matters are in a mess; come and tell us what we look like to the public. She came, and when her mission was done, she went away. We have had many other justices dealing with problems in the police, for instance. So why can't we have senior lawyers also go to help the judiciary? The reason why this matter is important is that it is causing a constitutional crisis; we are actually breaching—breaking our promise to the people, to the citizens, because the non-derogable right to a fair trial includes a speedy trial. A trial which is too slow cannot be said to be fair. This is not a new idea. According to the brief from the law society, former principal judge Bamugemereire proposed this idea over 10 years ago, but it has not picked up. But it is important that if we want to reduce backlog, we are better off getting these senior lawyers. More importantly, these senior lawyers will go to the hard-to-reach places. Actually, the backlog is one of the arguments being used for court martial. Those who are advocating for court martial say that you know we want quick justice because the civilian courts are too slow. We have had the president argue that the way to deal with cases like the cattle rustlers of Karamoja is through the court martial because they are faster. Now if we deal with backlog, then we will answer that argument. In fact, the idea of court martial for these kinds of cases is almost a vote of no confidence in our civilian judicial system. So I hope that the Masaka leaders, the leaders of the Masaka bar, can find some time and we talk. I want to promise the leaders of the Masaka bar that let's meet in the course of this week. I want to hear what your proposals are, and I'm happy to go with you, together with the national leaders of the law society, and we meet with the leadership of the judiciary because the constitution makes a promise to the citizens, and if the courts are closed, then that promise is being breached. I think we have got to apologize to the people of Masaka; there is no other way. We are very sorry that this is happening because now Masaka is being treated like it is too far away, yet it is just 90 minutes away from Kampala. So let's meet and see a way forward.

Thank you, honorable. Honorable, I actually thank you so much; I think you—what you've said has been music to the ears of many of us right here in these judicial service conversations. We have been the strongest promoters of mission-based judges based around Article 142(2) of the constitution, which says that when the state of the business of the court so requires, the president may, with the advice—on the advice—of the judicial service commission, appoint anyone qualified to act as a judge on a temporary basis, and we've been saying the state of the business of the court so requires; we've been saying this actually for 6 months before we saw what we saw in Masaka, and so I think your endorsement of this idea and your ringing endorsement is very strong. We've also hosted people here from South Africa; actually, we've had Senior Counsel Muzikayise who represented President Mandela, presumably—Julius Malema, Floyd Shivambu—and he told us here that he's an acting judge; he acts and he gets—he told us what it adds to his practice and what it adds to the community, and he's a practicing advocate. We hosted here someone, I think, from Judges Matter, so we're very grateful to you, honorable, that you've picked out on this. We're also very grateful that you've agreed to find time to meet the lawyers in Masaka and also that you've also agreed to address the issues concerning the liberty of the president of the ULS. I think Mercy will take us to the next question.

Yes, I think honorable, I want to really extend my gratitude because the way you've addressed the issues of Masaka, it's very interesting to see that after the conversations we've had over 6 months, we actually have a result, and we really want to thank you very much for that. We also want to thank you for the endorsement on the issue of mission-based judges. My question to you is with respect to consultation of lawyers when it comes to passing some of these laws. We've recently had the Succession Act amended, and we did see that letters of administration were elapsing by 31st of May 2025, and we hosted here a number of lawyers who...

Discussed and tried to explain to the public the impact of this law, but many lawyers found that many lawyers expressed their concern that they were not consulted prior. What this resulted in was impractical laws. Cuz if you have letters of administration lapsing on 31st of May 2025, and you have a number of people who have been running assets for over 10 years and they're not aware of this, or um the idea of how it's actually being implemented, leads to an uh increased case backlog. Because you have people applying for extension of letters of administration, applying for um extension of time within which to file their inventories. So you end up having a double challenge, and yet this is a law that was passed by parliament, and the people who actually um affected were not consulted, I think, in great detail. And this is replicated in a number of other laws.

Um, in your opinion, do you think that the that the lawmakers are taking enough time to consult lawyers and and the rest of a community before they pass some of these laws? Thank you.

In other words, is there a regulatory impact assessment? Well, we we I need to share with you my own experience in government. As you know, I only joined government in 2022, and I'm I'm still learning. One thing I found in government is what I would call territorialism. So the one of the biggest challenges that sometime we don't act like one country. We we have got to accept that all these entities are part of our body politic. Whether we think they are nasty, whether we think they're a nuisance, they are part of the ecosystem. Uganda really is our Noah's Ark. You know, in Noah's ark you have the cats, but they are restrained from attacking the rats because you know, outside there is a storm. So you you you every animal has to be at peace. If if we could adopt that attitude, and we know that this Uganda is our Noah's Ark, and there's no one out there who is worried about the development of Uganda. Some people think the British will come and make Uganda better and democratic. Some people think Donald Trump is losing sleep over our problems. Some people think, you know, the Scandinavians care about Uganda. We have to accept that really we are inside our Noah's ark, and out there there is this storm, whether it is Iran, whether it is this and that. If we could have that attitude, I think we would have a a a better country. So territorialism is the reason why nobody wants to involve other people in order to improve their decision-making.

At uh school I learned what they call the decision-making matrix. First, there is the person who recommends a course of action, and I would like to challenge the Uganda Law Society to be more proactive. A decision-maker is powerful, but somebody who recommends a course of action which ends up into a decision or leads to a decision is equally powerful. Sometimes even if you are president of a country, you may stand up and announce that I have decided to do this, but it may not even be your idea, but because you are the president you have the D, namely the decision-making power, but there are those who have the R, the power to recommend. I think the Uganda Law Society needs to step up to the plate and exercise its power to make constructive recommendations about about what what needs to be done. Then there are two other steps. There are those who need to agree. Now, if you are making a decision or passing a law which is going to affect very many citizens who are represented by lawyers, it is important that the law society gives it a nod and says we we really agree. It's is it's not a a bad thing. But more importantly is that we must have an inbuilt system of seeking the input of the Uganda Law Society when we have some of these these laws, and that brings me to my own docket. You know that we are we have developed a final draft of the national action plan on human rights, which is a a voluntary undertaking we made as a country even before I joined government. So the team at the attorney general's chambers has been burning the midnight oil for years, and one time even President Biden took to the podium to blast us saying Uganda has not yet honored its commitment to come up with a national action plan for human rights. I wish to inform everybody that the plan is now ready, and now I need to practice what I'm preaching here cuz I realized that I have not officially sent a copy to the law society for comments. So let let me lead by example by ensuring that tomorrow we we we send a copy of the final draft of the national action plan on human rights and request the the the law society to comment. I think many times we are more interested in the opinion of the so-called donors rather than the opinion of our our citizens who are really the the the law society. For for the donors, they will always keep moving from one country to another, but the law society is here to stay. They they are our citizens. So I make those recommendations that the law society should be proactive, and where the government is not thinking quickly enough, make your recommendations. We will either say yes or no, but at least we will know that there is an idea that we should consider. And then secondly, there are there are matters where you you need to say yes, it is important. We are we are right now coming up with the proposals on LDC. The the attorney general presented the the bill turning the law development center into an examination center rather than a teaching center. That is a revolutionary piece of legislation. I I think it is it is up to to the law society now to send their comments as as quickly as possible. But even without that we we will have to invite your input in in this law. Of course, the power to decide is largely for the executive headed by the president because it is the president who has the the mandate based on the elections. Now, he cannot cede that power to decide, but the quality of his decision will be improved immensely if he gets enlightened input and if he gets recommendations from those who are experts. So the executive will always seek to retain the the D, the power to decide.

Um, and and I'm a very strong advocate of holding on to that power. Many many times you elect a president, then the president surrenders his powers to civil servants who terrorize citizens, and then everybody is complaining to the president, please come and intervene. We are being disturbed by this. So I I I believe that we have to pick up these lessons about parliament. I also think one day you will have to host Madame Speaker on on this, exp will happen to you. If if you if if you send me as an emissary, I will tell her that Madame Speaker, my feathers were plucked, and I I have come to inform you that you are required to appear and talk about whether you are really making the best use of this law society. It is a resource. Why would why would we why would we think the Uganda law society is a burden? It is it is like the the public servants we have. I consider myself extremely blessed that I lead a ministry of more than 90% legal professionals. There are hundreds of them. They are they at my disposal. Any question I want answered, I just tap a code on my phone, and I will I will get an answer. Even if I want a a copy of the constitution of Tuvalu, a very small country there in the Pacific Islands, within 10 minutes somebody is in that building to bring me a copy of that constitution. So as decision-makers, we disempower ourselves. So even as a nation, we are the losers if we don't use the the resource that the Uganda Law Society presents. This is the only time that I hear a resource asking why are you not using us? You know you you you are in parliament. Why are you not why are you passing bad laws yet we are around to help you to make better laws? It's it's really a a scandal in my opinion. I can tell you even when I was LC5 chairman, I became the first LC5 chairman to demand that I should have a technical advisor. One day I had a meeting with the minister from the UK, think minister for international development. He came with a huge delegation of more than 10 environmental advisor, conflict advisor, economic advisor, advisors on everything, and me, I was on my side with my poor cow, two of us with with this high-voltage delegation. Now, what sort of discussion are are we going to have when we are talking about the role of Sudan in the conflict in the north? The minister gets a note from the expert; for me, I'm so disempowered, so I I I just became also radical and said, Honorable Minister, this is so unfair, look at the kind of delegation you have and mine, would you consider paying for a technical advisor for the office of the chairman of Gulu district? So he asked the person who was in charge here at the British High Commission, and they said yes, we can do it. That's how we recruited Michael Terry from Oxford to come and sit across my office, and I can say that is one of the reasons why Gulu district was able to overtake Wiso for the first time in in many many years. So we cannot uh speak enough about the the need to get quality advice from professionals who are with why should law society be begging to help parliament? But that is that lies with the Madame Speaker, and I'll I'll pass your message.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Honorable. You have promised justice to the lawyers in your promising to help them come back to work. Even the young lawyers who on the call are like also need justice, that for them, the generation in limbo, like they they suffering not because they want money from the government but because they they being denied the right to practice their profession. They are spending almost 3 years being advocates. So in the total now they count that they need 10 years to become advocates. Four years in law school, one year for DC, 3 years before they be as advocate. So it's it's coming like 10 years for them to be a devocate, and they are looking towards you, what what can be done for them because their careers they are being wounded by the system which supposed to support them because the enrollment, their careers are crippling, their lives are being affected, their mental health is they are depressed, they are losing a lot of jobs because they can't be given jobs when they when when they apply for jobs, the first requirement is road, and they keep missing out on that. They can't even practice as in private practice even where they're working from law firms because you're not enrolled as an advocate. So you are more a even after finishing all this and everything. So as we offered solutions to people in Masaka even in limbo because of blood, they are looking forward to a solution from your hand, and maybe we will do it from this space. Thank you.

There's a traffic jam at the law council. That that is a fact. We we we have to deal with the with with the culture. There is there is a there is a a culture that needs to be tackled. I get a lot of complaints on my desk, and many times when we talk to the secretary of the law council, she to perform the feed full time somewhere else. So they really don't have the time to sit. I I personally don't understand the formality and requirement for a certificate of eligibility. I it is one area where the senior lawyers in the in the law society have to tell us what would be the ideal. It is causing a lot of frustration. Now that said, we we really would like to have on the role lawyers who are ready to practice. I I have had some encounters that have horrified me about whether some of the people we have on the role are really ready. I do not know what the solution is, but the solution is not to cause a traffic jam. Now, we need a system that will take away those who are not ready as early as possible so that they don't reach the stage of even applying to the law council. And that is why we we we have bad news that pre-entry is coming back. That that's really the the the only way we we we we want to let everybody know that whether we like it or not, pre-entry is is is coming back. In some countries, law is a postgraduate course. You first have to do another course, then you you go and you study law. Pre-entry is an objective test, just like before you do a master's degree you you you do the aptitude test. The aptitude test is just a measure of your your brain. They are not asking you any facts which you can cram. They they just test your ability to think logically and to reach conclusions that are sound. So I I'm a supporter of the the pre-entry. Two weeks ago, the attorney general presented that law creating the LDC now as an examination center. But we have got a decision to make whether we we want to increase the numbers of those who make the decision so that we have many panels that can make the decisions in in the law council or we eliminate it all together. I I don't have the answer right now. But if we have done all the quality assurance, if we have frontloaded all the quality assurance, then I don't see why somebody should start going through all these steps, certificate of eligibility, you gazette, then you do this and that. I I think the new the new system is going to come with some positive changes. I I I propose that you you let us share with you the the bill got a green light to on what should be done. I I personally believe that this is a problem which is legitimate. But at the same time, the the thousands and thousands who are applying, I also even from ministers as you know, many of them have gone back to law school also. So they they are also facing those those challenges. I want to suggest that you wait when this bill is published, then you eliminate this certificate of eligibility. I I don't think it exists. The three bands have been read. I don't think the church first gives you a certificate of eligibility to marry, powerful. So some they they they have to sit at a particular time in the day to approve who should receive their savings. It is your money. Now you go to the bank. Go to the bank. The bank, the bank given no money to any given no money to any corner of the globe of the globe with the with the possible exception of Russia, where unless you have a card known as union pay, you you may starve. So the the colonial legislation that we have were intended to to give a sense of power to to bureaucrats. Technology now should should be able to democratize this. I look forward to the day when all these processes will be done online like URSB. A lawyer should be able to to fill all these things online, and everything should be online, and then when the when the their their lordships or whoever makes those decisions at the law council, they should be able to get these things and act. We are doing it at the ministry of justice by the way. There's an electronic filing system. I I mean a document system. They have e-dos. Every document is now uh electronic, and it really really harasses everybody in attorney general's chambers. And it even has a color code. It has it is green if you are still within the deadline. The moment you are you you are being warned, you see it turns to amber. When it is red, it means now you are out of time, and it keeps warning you, and and that's why the AG's chambers has become a lot more efficient in in churning out legal opinions and comments even on government contracts because of that system. I've refused to sign on it because I I'm old school and and me I'm I'm political. So I have a good excuse. So one of the recommendations that I would put in the law council is that we we make sure most of these things are done online. The the way it is, those days you would print memorandum and articles of association. You go and bind them. Then you look for those people in the Ministry of Justice. They stamp it manually. If the person with the stamp is not around, you have to wait. Registering a company would take weeks. So we can use technology also to eliminate this. I I believe those are options. In other words, we are open to suggestions from the law society. Thank you.

Thank you, Honorable Noad Mau, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. If you're joining us, we've been here since 7:00 p.m., speaking all things law and all things justice with the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs. Um, I have uh I have um maybe before Massie comes in, I have two quick announcements, Honorable. The first one is I have seen that we have been joined by the vice president of the Uganda Law Society, and I think we'll be giving him an opportunity to ask or or make a comment on what's happening. I have also received a message from the Masaka bar that is very grateful, and the words they are saying is they most obliged for your words and for being able to come out and apologize for the situation and for taking their concern seriously. They are very happy to meet with you, and they will ask that we communicate to you that you once you or once they have a date and time they prefer tomorrow. So they are saying they can they can come to Kampala and and uh and and and engage on this. Um, but as we're getting the vice president on, I think Mari also had a a question. Please, if you have questions, we're about to wind up. I think we'll be winding up in the next uh 20 minutes. We'll be winding up in the next 20 minutes. Um um so please if you have any questions or comments, kindly send them through to us so we can put them to the minister and uh maybe we'll have Merci and then um I don't know if the vice president has come on yet. Yeah. And then we'll have the vice president. Merci.

Thank you, Ellison. Um, I think it would be a disservice for us to close this space without um making a case for a number of lawyers who we hosted here who represent a diverse group of people. I would say women, a number of marginalized groups of people. And in doing so, we we did hear a number of experiences that they are having when they represent uh people who don't have maybe finances to access lawyers who would represent them in courts, and that means that they have no representation or they rely on these organizations to give them access to a lawyer who would represent them. Or we have people who um don't even know their rights. We have people who are in uh prisons for a number of years on remand with no access to a lawyer. Um, you mentioned, Honorable, that the ministry of justice is working on um an HR human rights paper and that you're going to share the same a policy that you're going to share with the Uganda Law Society, but and you also mentioned that there's a desk within the Ministry of Justice that um deals with these questions that many people have. Um, our worry is that the challenges that they presented before us may need more action uh if we're going to meet people people's needs as of now. What other steps is the Ministry of Justice taking to be able to to access these marginalized groups of people all over the country, but also increase access to justice and to representation for these people? Thank you.

From my from where I sit, I ask myself whether the things I learned in school are really the most relevant to the job I do. If I sample the the people who come to see me, let me talk about today. Number one, somebody has a piece of land in at the equator. All of a sudden, somebody has acquired a title over his land and has even sold part of it, and and the person who has illegally bought the land is now threatening them. So the vast cases of injustices actually have very little to do with the courts. I I I don't think it is even fair to make the question of injustices in Uganda about the judiciary. In any case, only slightly above 10% of the cases and disputes go to the judicial system. So that one was live in my office today. It ideally I don't I don't think there's any minister of justice in any country like America or Britain who people go to see over maybe a land a piece of land somewhere in London that somebody has forged a title over. That tells

You that we really have serious problems. We have we have a brokenness in our systems.

Imagine if you woke up tomorrow and your records at NRA have changed and you are no longer Ellison. If it were possible for somebody to go and change your particulars, they change your date of birth. They they they they change they say you have blue eyes and things like that. This is what that's one case. The the second case, a mob justice. Some people carry out mob justice which in itself is a symptom of a problem where people don't trust the police. They think that if you don't beat up the thief quickly, they will get banned after paying a bribe. Before you reach home, the thief will have arrived back home to wait for you and taunt you. So Minister of Justice, these people have been in jail for 3 years, no trial. In one case, after bagging the the DPP, a nollie was entered. That is a case number two. Then you have cases of botched up compensations, citizens who are not being compensated in time. Another one is where somebody is being threatened with arrest yet he's a witness in a criminal case. The these are the injustices that we are talking about. In other words, can we give our citizens freedom from fear that our our justice system is for them? The majority of Ugandans actually are law-abiding. Now we need to tackle that minority that that enjoys the protection of of the state and and they act with with impunity.

So as a result of that the the president has done some fire brigade measures. Those fire brigade measures are really like bandages of a bleeding wound. So he has land protection unit. They they are there in Nasero. But the moment they get into a case they are likely to collide with a powerful person somewhere and that will be the end of the investigations. When somebody says do do you know who you are playing with then you back off. The other fire brigade unit the president has put is the the state house invest investors protection unit where canona is is doing some work to protect investors. Here is a situation where an investor comes to Uganda. He is made to pay big money under the guys that he's going to get maybe some contract or to get land to build a factory. He is conned. He never gets the land. When he becomes agitated and wants to activate the justice system, then he's accused of defilement out of the blue. He has not even shaken hands with a Ugandan woman, but he's told that, you know, you there's a complaint here that you have committed defilement. In no time, he's deported out of this country. These are these are the injustices that that we we deal with. I can tell you this confidently because this is my daily menu. Every day um I I I have to to to to deal with these cases of the the injustices that that people face.

You have another situation that u somebody is interdicted. Now interdiction is supposed to last no more than 6 months. There are judicial officers who have been interdicted. So even judicial officers are facing injustice. A judicial officer is interdicted and after the expiry of the 6 months you would expect them to go back to office but they go back to office they tell them no way the attorney general has written opinions telling the power interdiction cannot go offices. The these are the the injustices that that we are talking about. So what does it require? It it basically requires political will and it means those who are in charge of supervising the officials should crack the whip. At the Ministry of Justice, our our job is to ensure that those who are in charge of doing things do them in time at least within the ministry. We we have attempted to attempted to create a kind of ecosystem that that uh endeavors to deliver because we we are really a service ministry. We serve everybody including LC3s. When an LC3 wants to do a bylaw, they they send it to the Ministry of Justice. We we also serve them. But the I want to make a strong case for actions outside the judiciary. And these these actions is is about citizens getting served by by the government. If tomorrow you you walked to any government department and demanded a service, chances are that you may get a letter but you may not get a real solution.

Finally, when we have a problem such as the problems we have in let's say administration of estates, I want you to to know that there are times I have gone to the administrator general's office to mediate between families. Citizens are suffering. There's a lot of meddling with estates simply because sometimes the the system has been corrupted. Then there are there we still have cases of files disappearing by the way even in the judiciary. It is it is a it is a big scandal. There is a there is a case in Barara. It came to my desk today that the file disappears and appears according to the will of of of of somebody. The these are these are things that we have to talk about. As a result, people think that everything must now go to the president. So the the president is burdened with so so so so many things that even a clearcut case somebody says we need to see the president. You do not know how many people come to me saying I should tell the president that they want to meet him and I tell them why are you taking away my job? The president gave me this job. Why why don't you let me do it? There there are very very many cases like that and sometimes we have been able to solve these these problems at at the ministry of justice. So it is not only actually injustice is not only at the at the ministry of justice it is it is virtually everywhere.

Now we have the premeds, the premedical students. That's another, you know, you could say it is a it is an elephant in the room. We have we have got to to to deal with that. And then the other day some lawyers came and told me they want to set up a trade union. I don't know whether you are aware of it. Yes. Uh I suspect they want to go to parliament because they can they can easily produce a workers MP. They are very serious and they they have some numbers. They have decided to register trade union of lawyers and I asked them whether they have any links with the law society. Of course they are members of the law society. So close closing the the the justice loop requires very very very many people to the extent that now I am carrying out consultations on the need to appoint justices of the peace all across the country to go and check on police posts and so on. Many of the people we think have disappeared. Some of them were dumped in upount police stations and some people don't know who even dumped them there. This is this is a reality. So the answer lies in in in transparency. The the law has provisions for justices of the peace. Now we we need particular kind of citizens who can assist the the justice system and people who can be trusted. If we can restore trust the way we are struggling to to restore trust that courts are everywhere. We we can tell you without any fear of contradiction and I've talked to the chief justice and the president also has committed to support it that in the next 5 years there will be a magistrate in every constituency in Uganda that that that that definitely will ensure that at least people can have their dispute resolved. We are on track to ensuring that there is a high court in every district in Uganda. And then the chief justice has already set a date for groundbreaking for the the three court of appeal circuits bar and Gulu. Hopefully that will will help. We are having a big debate now on the Supreme Court. You lawyers are clogging our Supreme Court with cases that I think have no room in the Supreme Court. There are some cases that have gone to the Supreme Court which have really no questions of law to be decided. The US Supreme Court, I don't think they even handle 50 cases in in a year. There must be very very very few. We faced this debate when the parliamentary committee threw away my proposal. I wanted the Supreme Court to be increased to 15 judges. I was chased away by parliament. They said that is not their problem. But I'm now reconsidering it. Remember those who go to the Supreme Court are of a particular age bracket and constituting panels may be difficult. So I'm in consultation with the chief justice maybe we will go back to parliament. So if we go back to parliament and we get the number increased to 15 already the court of appeal we are at 35. We can create the panels. Now some of the people will move from the court of appeal and go to the Supreme Court and uh we still have room to recruit very many more because the the establishment of the high court parliament approved 151 high high court judges which is which is more than um the the number of districts we we we have in Uganda. So those are things which are which are on track. But the pressure points of injustice are not just around the judiciary. They are they they all over the place in very very very many places. We have we have got to deal with them. Thank you honorable.

I think um if you're just joining us we're about to wind up. We're with the minister of justice and constitutional affairs. Honorable as you were telling those stories of what comes to you. I I remembered a famous case in one of our not famous but a notorious case in one of our courts here where somebody applied for letters of administration and the alleged deceased turned up in court and said uh my lord I am alive and they asked him for his national ID and he asked the judge but can you ask uh the applicant to bring the corpse because So, so that sharp practice you're talking about, we've we we've witnessed it. Of course, um we are still we're still looking for the vice president. I don't know, for some reason I couldn't get through to him. I he was on and then I don't know how he how how he how he got off. Maybe if he could request to to speak then we could give him the microphone. Uh I think many of the challenges for for so many lawyers for example um some of the challenges at the Supreme Court that they just for many lawyers they just haven't been heard for years. I think there are number of of um of matters in the Supreme Court that haven't been heard. The court of appeal has 12,000 cases. Right now we had here a very senior lawyer who told us that he once filed a constitutional petition and then he forgot about it. He moved on with his life and then about 12 years later he was given information that he had won his petition and he asked what did I petition about? So so I think I think he was here but if he's on the call here maybe I'll not call him out but he he he was here. So I think there are serious issues of backlog. Um we are we we are just remaining with about 5 minutes to to close and uh we had had a comments from the uh vice president. We had also I think uh gotten a comment from um from the masaka people. I think we we had read that one out. Yes. Um um I can't see the request, but um if you're just joining us, thank you so much for the time you've been you've been here. For those who have been here for um since 7:00, we will be closing hopefully at 9:30. Um uh now, but before we'll be be closing at about 9:30. I can see the vice president of the law society is on. So, um I'll give him the microphone right now to ask his question. Thank you very much uh Edison. Um and uh thank you very much honorable minister.

Uh mine is not really a question but um um just a few comments I intend to to make. I hope you can hear me. We we can hear you loud and clear, Mr. Vice President. Loud and clear. Perfect. Thank you very much. Uh members, I'll uh first thank uh the honorable minister for spending all this time and uh you must agree with me that uh honorable minister Ma is one of uh the the few we have in Uganda who will give you all this time and uh he'll give you his uh candid uh discussion and with openness and uh and honesty and I really applaud you for that. Um and thank you very much for putting this together. So I'd like to thank the members who are online listening. Um uh maybe just to uh to to to make the minister understand very well is that uh this is a product of um our democratization campaign. Um uh has been doing this for the members. I think um this judicial service commission um situation has been a blessing uh for us. Um I would like to take the positive that even the delay in having our elections conducted has benefited members more because probably would not have had these u uh engagements. Um if you recall um as a result of our uh R&B executing order number two that's when we did introduce this um aspect of democratization and um for for for elections of our representatives the judicial service commission and this was really had a good plan and uh and everything was structured. So this is an example of all that. Um if you look at also our other agendas like the decolonization I've heard minister M speak about so many laws that we have in place he talked about law council he talked about um uh you should forget about the US act all these laws we have and we are still um tying ourselves onto uh you know a colonial relic uh like the situation at at law council and I've had the minister talk about the the suggestions and what you should and and I can assure you we make these suggestions but uh in most cases when you make these suggestions recently I wrote a letter to the local council chair about um about the situation the enrollment uh situation and what can be done about it with various recommendations but the challenge is that these people are not open to discussion they're not open to listening to you know to advice from from from the voices of of the people uh who have been on Every time you come up with these suggestions, people will say these R&B people are mad. They don't know what they talking about, but we're providing solutions in the current state. So, I like the fact that um we we're having a discussion where uh we actually touching all this and uh it gives me a lot of u personally on my behalf and my behalf of uh council it gives us a lot of courage and hope that now we have we have people who really do understand. I also want to believe that honorable minister doesn't require converting. He he's already converted and um he does believe in all these aspects of decolonization. Um and and do with all these aspects which are a colonial relic. Now um I know it's been a whole discussion but uh looking at the elephant in the room which is the state of justice in Uganda. It's quite a huge topic. I am sorry I joined in late. Um I was attending to uh a meeting at at Po but I had to rush and join in um just listen I don't know how Ellis smoked me out um I noticed that I was present I don't want to be such u discussions but as I talk about that as I make my comments adding on to what the minister has said um it's really about um the the you know the the the independence of the of um of judiciary and the legal profession um that is looming and uh we really cannot we cannot hide from that. You keep talking about the autonomy of lawyers and um all we've been saying is that the autonomy of lawyers is you know it has to exist with the autonomy of judges they're like conjoined. You cannot have the the bar alone and the bench and this also speaks to the uh to the bar bench relations. Um I had the minister talk about the situations where we came from where we are uh how uh the opening of the new lawyer was such an embarrassment to all of us. Uh and the picture it portrays out there uh we need to know that much as lawyers might be autonomous when the judiciary or the judge officers are not the judicial officers are not the vehicle of justice cannot move. We we basically have to work together and most of you have been following just last week on Friday I uh I together with uh the the members of the R&D council um we met the chief justice and uh had a few discussions and it was um I see the minister say this is the time is ripe for for engagement and discussions and these were our major you know focus. It was our major focus of discussion the barbage relations and the state of um justice in the country uh in the area of access to justice what can be done in the wake of the massacre issue which uh when I tried to raise earlier some people felt it is an issue they should just ignore but we said hey this is not something you can ignore. We need to work together and I I'm glad that the chief justice this time really uh opened up and said we can have a candid discussion. We can look for solutions together because it's not enough for judiciary to think they can you know have solutions. We are the foot soldiers. We have members all over. We are the ones who experience all these. They need to look at it from the angle of a practitioner. Why would they massacre people for example let down their tools? They're not mad. They are not stupid because at the end of the day who gets who does it affect? It affects members of the public and both of us both the judiciary and the lawyers were here to serve the public. We are aiming at one thing, access to justice. Of course, I know it is business for the lawyers, but who would not want to earn. In any case, the judicial officer will still earn their salary whether you go to court or not. But the lawyer that day probably will not even get anything because the clients will not pay if not gone to court. Other lawyers are standing a risk of losing, you know, instructions. But they're saying, "Hey, this is just a a symptom. It's a mere symptom of you know a system that is almost broken down because as the chief justice always explains to us and has been explaining um you know the the achievements we are seeing an increase in the number of courts an increase in the number of number of judicial officers even recently saw new judicial officers being appointed but then we are saying is this going to resolve the problem is it solving the problem at the end of the day if you do not have consultations if you do not consult and I like the fact that uh the minister kept pointing to the need to consult law society when you're coming up with some of these policies when you're making certain decisions but has been more of a deliberate move to make decisions without consulting without reaching out to the society we have a mandate under section 3 of the act to advise government to advise judiciary but there has been that deliberate move to leave us out and that's why we are saying uh we we we cannot we cannot sit back and keep quiet. uh it reminds me of uh one uh one politician who said if parliament cannot come to the gate or the gate will come to parliament and that's how we are trying to use you know other means of of being hurt which some members some people have actually misunderstood they think the lawyers are being unruly by the end of the day if you cannot speak and fight for this independence um for this autonomy because what we see in masaka is twofold there's an issue to do with autonomy of lawyers and autonomy of the of the judiciary of of of the of the of the judicial officers. For example, if courts are not working, you had members telling me they're refunding. Some of them are refunding instruction fees. Clink lawyers are having with judicial officers, they're not working and will not get any business. But then at the end of the day, let's also be realistic. How do you expect to have a judicial officer, one judicial officer in a station handling over 4,900 matters, even if they work on a daily basis? Even if they had I don't know whatever number of cases in a day it is impossible even if you brought in you know the aspect of the performance appraisal what the person do what much can they do so it is important that we take of this

That's why it's even at the UN; they took it seriously. We have a special focus on the independence of lawyers and judges, and uh, we even have, you know, a whole document about, uh, you know, the independence of the judiciary. But unfortunately, in Uganda, uh, most of the provisions of that document, um, that was, um, uh, you know, that was uh reached out through a resolution of the UN, it's hard for—which is um the best principles on the intent of the judiciary—it has so many provisions including freedom of expression. Unfortunately, it cannot happen in Uganda.

And rightly so, we, we are the ones who can speak; it's the lawyers who can speak for the members of the bench, for the judiciary, if there's anything wrong. But they are failing to see this, and this is where the challenge is. So we are saying that, listen, we need to step up, both um as members of the bar, as members of society, and uh stand tall. Because if you cannot speak for the members of the public, then who will speak for them? Um, you've seen what the impression and and it's been creating. I mean, right now you all know our president uh is not in the country simply because we have several cases; there's a judgment, you know, a sentence of 2 years, and um he filed, had several applications after filing an appeal. He has an application for for suspension of a sentence.

Now, if an application involving the president of the Gandhi Society can spend over 6 months without being heard, yeah. And then uh you find the the day you have a chance and it is fixed, it is adjourned to 2 months, an application, and there's no explanation for that. What does that indicate? How about an ordinary person? We've been here talking about this, you know, delayed justice. Sometimes um people say the members of the judicial are corrupt. One doesn't have to actually be corrupt; even if you're just passive, you can be corrupt. But now why would anyone think that this is just as if, if you're saying an application is going to be adjourned 2 months ahead in August when someone has been waiting for over 4 months and there's no clear reason? Most of you remember we filed an application for Adas Scopas for Eron Kiza. That application has never been fixed. It is there pending. It is in court. So I think some of these problems are really self-created, and it's high time—uh, I know, Honorable Minister—I listen, it's high time you talk to these people. These are the discussions we had with the chief justice, and he promised that, you know, most of the things are going to be looked into. You find someone file an application and they take 6 months a year without having it fixed.

In fact, I was happy when he said the PJ should compile, you know, um a list; you should should write to all the judicial officers around and they get a list of lists of all those, you know, pending bail applications that have been in the system for 3 months and above. So then these judicial officers will explain why they can't even hear those matters. So um I I I see where we are going. Like you said, we agree that we need to have cooperation and work together in improving, you know, the lives of Ugandans, in improving the services we we deliver. But that can only happen if you have proper backbench relations. I don't I still don't see a reason why the president cannot be in Uganda. The president cannot be home. We have a whole president of the country simply because his own matters are stuck in court. Now if, and people are saying if this is happening to lawyers, if we cannot speak for those who cannot speak, those who are voiceless, then what happens at the end of the day? The whole public is going to lose trust in the judicial system, and uh I I I I I believe all of us know what happens once people lose confidence and trust in the in the system, the judicial system; they'll begin taking matters into their hands. That's why I said increased cases of uh, you know, total breakdown of the rule of law because people go and look for solutions on their own. If you've been speaking to the ordinary citizens, they tell you, why would I go to court? Uh, I was reading a joke earlier where someone posted saying, I'm watching lawyers here wasting—I'm watching a client wasting money on his lawyer instead of giving it to me. And this is a judicial officer speaking. So we see the members of the public have this belief of, if you believe that a lawyer is useless, I can do what I need without a lawyer. And you have a judicial where the judicial officers believe you can work without lawyers; it becomes absurd because at the end of the day, it it's from the lawyers; it's you're first a lawyer then you become a judicial officer.

So I really I like the the fact that now members are getting engaged in these discussions; people are suggesting solutions for us; we are always here to to to give and given these solutions, Honorable. Even the recent um UPDF amendment bill, we gave our position; you've noticed our position; I was very clear about by the law. But again uh you find the challenges; you give your position and your advice and it is not considered; it is not looked at; it's it's um it's like it's inconsequential. But then again, all we are promising is as the members of the of the bar, we are not backing down; we are not stopping. That's why we are still working against all those four Ds, yeah. We we are working with the four Ds: the decolonization, the democratization, and uh and—Um, if everything the minister has touched, you must notice we've talked about it. He's talked about the LDC situation. This has been an issue, an elephant in the room, where we've given our, you know, various opinions and what we think um as the B should be done. But like I said, when we say it, we are trying to be radical; when the president says we need to use radical means to get solutions because the normal ways have not worked, again, you know, people do misunderstand. So I believe uh right now what we are doing as the law society, we are trying to use both. We are using the radical means to ensure that, you know, the message is sent home. But again we are also engaging. People think we are not engaging; they're taking it the wrong way; they think we are fighting. It's not a fight; we are engaging because we believe we can get solutions from all, you know. All we're interested in is ensuring that, you know, people deliver; the members of the public benefit from what we are supposed to be doing. Because in our meeting uh we agreed that now the chief justice has to convene a meeting including involving all the to justice um the justice sector so that so that we have a better society. Otherwise, thank you very much, as I as I conclude, but I also want to believe and call upon the judicial, especially the court of, to make sure this comes to an end. Uh, our GD show service commission um representatives have been, you know, the the candidates have been campaigning for I don't know forever—um, I don't know where he gets the energy from—but like we say, nobody can stop re-but the energy is still there. But you can imagine all this is happening because our cases are stuck in court; they're not being, you know, handled. But this is for the benefit—not for the benefit of the lawyers—but for the judiciary itself. So really do call upon them to act and uh and do their part for the ends of justice really to be met. Thank you very much. Over to you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Um, for if you're just joining us, we have the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Honorable Noad Mao. Uh, maybe I'll give the next comment before Honorable you come in to—um, Honorable Dr. Cara—and to tell you who this man you have is—have is—because many of you just see him uh as a minister, as somebody on TV making comments, as a president of the Democratic Party, former MP, former chairman. But there is another person inside that facade called Noat Mao, the individual. I want to tell you that I'm so happy and I'm awake because of that individual. I have known him; I have respected him; I have respectfully debated with him; I have admired him in the course of his journey uh in Uganda as a politician from the early days as a child. I did not know him, but I've heard his story when he was speaking to the Christian lawyers when he told us how at one time he wanted to jump off a bridge and end his life. But now I thank you because you have never been content to be ordinary; completely unmistakable as it is today. You never speak to impress people; you speak because of your conviction. You challenge and you enlighten. You know I got worried about you; you had not gone for a diplomatic cocktail; you were just dancing with with death. In fact, that time, one wrong word. You can bring the chief justice; I know him, a very good man. You can bring him; he can turn around. You can bring, as you said, bring the speaker. You can even bring the attorney general; provision for lawyers to be on it in order to provide—to provide judicial services—to bring justice to the people of Uganda. How can it be in existence without members of our society and people find good sleep, those who are in charge? Please, please, my brother, now do what God made you for. Resurface and fulfill your destiny. I I I I I see lawyers plead cases for compensation of cases for northern Uganda for the Ash wars or Teso. They finish their case and then they being told you have—you can wind up your matters and go, when they have spent six months in hotels in Gulu verifying and just ignore them. Some of these things baffle me. I have personally attended some court cases. You've just been talking about titles being superimposed on top of others. Some of these places are crime scenes; some of the ministries are crime scenes; they they they need they need scene of crime officers to go there and really cordon off some of those departments playing about with the lives of the people of Uganda. That's why I turned to you, No, and that's why I'm sitting here until 3:52. I'm in Korea. Colleagues, to be a minister is is not an office where he was so important. The minister means servant. Try and convince colleagues in in power that they are servants of the people. Let's help us—help us to to go through this storm. Restore order. Bring integrity and justice in our country. Use your position not just as minister of justice but as a custodian of fairness in our land. Do you remember John Stewart Mill? He said the worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it. Nobody should hide from bringing fairness to our society. I can't thank you enough for spending all this time talking to this audience. I I I have always seen you as an individual of worth. It is time for you to show it once again that your leadership is not measured in titles but in the truth and in it your worth. You remember at one time sitting with you on NBS on a show, and I can see that um Mr. Aris Katawa is on here with Pondo and others. You might recall that I was joking and but it turned out to be like um a a a prophecy. You remember on that day I lightheartedly and sincerely I said the president should fish Mau out of Lake Victoria and make him a minister since he had fished out others. I never thought I was prophesying; I I didn't think it would happen, but to my astonishment it happened. So when truth hides in humor, it tends to resurface as destiny. I am glad you got this destiny, and and I want you—I want you—I want you to make sure that this pending cases—in their millions—in court; people being deported in for trial and they stay there for 11 years without being heard. I want you to do everything you can to leave a legacy and to help us because you have the support of these lawyers. I I don't know how I can conclude this remark. I wish I could give you some statistics, but it's too late; I'm getting a bit too sleepy. But I want to tell you, out of honor, I am awake. Out of all of you, I'm awake, and our expectations of you and your support to Uganda is remarkable. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here and thank you for giving me a chance to say something, Edison.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. You're welcome, sir. Okay, I think we'll have closing remarks. I don't know if that one maybe could just in in a sentence, please. I know you've been waiting, but you'll bear with us. We've been with the minister since 7 p.m.

Okay. Okay, that's okay with uh—Thank you so much for giving me an opportunity to speak a word or two here. I'm so much grateful for that; just that my issues were a bit—they go back to enrollment which Honorable Minister addressed, but personally I wasn't uh that much convinced with his remarks; he talks about the policies that are coming, the laws that are coming, and you can see these are the—they act in the wrong—but we have people who are in the tunnel; we have people who have been waiting for enrollment for one and a half years; they have not—their issue has not been addressed. Honorable Minister has not given this immediate—immediate remedy to these people. He talks about the overwhelming applications, but the overwhelming applications to me, with all due respect, that's what I would call a sham defense, because these applications come in time, and then you tell me you have people who are employed elsewhere to come and evaluate the commission. I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but if you could just—I think so—the argument is—I think the argument is well understood—just if you could just in a sentence just put the question.

Okay. My question is, as the ministry, do they have an immediate remedy to people who are in the tunnel who have been waiting for enrollment for about one and a half years? Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mr. You. Forgive me for cutting you short, but um um we we we have to we have to close this. Um, over to you, you Honorable Minister. First, I I wish to sincerely thank the Honorable Elar Rohanga. We we know how far away South Korea is and the time difference—time difference. I thank you for the challenge you have given me. It is it is a very sobering set of remarks you made, complete with advice. I welcome what you said. I know you're one of the few who would always meet me in the corridors and encourage me because I used to smuggle in—I used to smuggle in red label whiskey, and I was the smuggler. I would carry it to the bush to join him. And one day I carried a bottle and Bishop Onang saw the bottle and he said that I'm going to to pray the bottle will break, and indeed when the plane landed in the bush the bottle broke and then the contents spilled into a packet of biscuits. When they announced to Colonel Walter Chur that this was because of the bishop's prayers, he said, "I don't care. I'll now just eat the whiskey because it is all over in the in the biscuits." But the second bottle survived. Then he mixed it up with Joseph K's wild berries. It turned into wine, and I also joined in the drinking. We got a bit intoxicated, him getting very intoxicated. At one point he started shouting at Vincent Oti. One time I heard him tell Vincent T, when we were talking about the International Criminal Court, "Shut up." And I told myself, this this is the end; we are dead today. You know, in the middle of the night you are surrounded by gunmen. And uh so I think we only went there because we thought, well, everything else has been tried; we may as well go. But we were encouraged by the fact that our religious leaders were there and the traditional leaders were were also there. We even—where we are now—we are taking some calculated risks; the young people who are leading the law society now are standing up against very great challenges. So I I really appreciate your your your wise counsel. We thank God that you are there to to to counsel us. We wait for you to return and then we have a face-to-face. I embrace all the challenges you have thrown at me. Now concerning practical measures. Yes. Please do me a favor and do the country a favor and the law society. Bring back Sakad. I I I I that young man has been elected; he has his term of office; it's about to expire, I suppose. But bringing back Sim—you bring back hope to this law society. Don't don't get the president of the Law Society of Uganda in exile. Thank you very much. I I accept that challenge also. It is it is difficult, but it is our duty to make sure that he comes back. Now, in in summing up, I want to to assure those who are concerned about enrollment. We deal with cases also. What I I spoke about uh the reasons why enrollment is slow; those are really not my own words; I was only telling you the response that the secretary of the law council told the cabinet, and it is a reported speech. I believe in the truth of that because any any organization has challenges, but those who have been waiting for a very long time, it is still our duty to tell the secretary of the law council to speed up the processes. We cannot run away from that. I did not mention those reasons as an excuse for doing nothing, but I thought I should also make a case for the other side. In in fairness, we have to listen to to all sides. This this conversation will will have to continue. Now, as I continued uh speaking, I got a message from another person who was listening to me, that is Esther. Esada challenged me and said the greatest injustice is poverty, presented to me as well. Yes. Uh-huh. So our host also got that message. I I agree with that, that indeed the greatest injustice is poverty. Mahatma Gandhi said it even better; he said poverty is the worst form of violence. I think there's nothing could have been said better because poverty weakens more than any other thing. And that is why the government has woken up to these programs that are supposed to put money in people's pockets. I think next we need to talk about active citizenship in this country. You cannot count only on the elected leaders to fight for you. Citizens also have to to have a stake in in these things. We need a new civic culture; we need citizens who are aware of those who represent them. Last month, my son came home and he asked me, "Dad, who is our LC1 chairman?" Then I told him, then he said, "What about LC2?" I didn't know. And uh LC3, and I mentioned the mayor of Mak Sabo. How did this happen? They were in church praying, and then their team leader said, now pray for your leaders by name and you say, "God bless my LC1 XY Z, bless my LC2 XY, bless my LC3." I'm sure if I went around the table here, uh, we would be greatly embarrassed. Yeah, everybody is saying, "Pass." It it simply shows that uh we are we are totally disconnected from those who actually have a duty to serve us. Many many people do not know who actually has a duty to serve them. And that's the reason why everybody pours hot calls on the president. The president should come and do this; the president should come and do this. The truth of the matter is that most of these things should be done by us. Why should it be the president running around inspecting parish development model projects? The the members of parliament, are they aware of the parish development beneficiaries in their constituencies? What about the LC3s? I think there's something we have got to do, and that is the way out of poverty by ensuring that money has impact. Now the financial year is ending; the bulldozers are out on the roads because money must be spent; roads that have been ignored for months, suddenly the potholes are being filled because otherwise Ramadan Goi will say, "Please send back the money to to Kala." So we we we need some—as we said—difficult conversations in this country, and unless we are ready for those difficult—consultation—conversations, there's no way we can say that we we want to build the country. That said, Ellison and your colleagues, in this conversation we have really just scratched the surface. As for me, I want to pledge that as long as I'm pointed—pointed in the right direction, I'll do my best.

And we achieve our goals. But by the way, politicians are very good people. If you point them in the right direction, they will do wonderful things. Also, if you point them in the wrong direction, they will also deliver the disaster that you fear.

I hope that for the duration that I still have in the ministry of justice—because for me, I don't have a constituency; I serve at the pleasure of the president—and even in parliament, I'm MP of Kame; I am not elected at all—but I hope today I've been able to paint in broad strokes, and I hope we have given some reason for hope for citizens.

Of course, the best reason for hope is that we must protect personal liberties. There are things that I've been telling the judiciary: that every court session must begin with cases concerning the liberty of citizens. Before you call a land matter, before you call anything, I think every court should be open to cases concerning liberty—bail applications, production warrants; those should be the very first cases.

And the truth is, we are really Africans. I think we should allow even walking situations. The first few minutes, the way we have in parliament—we have open mics, open question time where any MP just asks any question on the government side—imagine if we have a court where citizens go, and the first few minutes, some citizens can put up their hands and say, "You know, my husband has been in jail for this long," and then the judge says, "Clerk, what is this? Why is this matter?" This is really the African way. We have got to Africanize our justice system. It may sound absurd or even chaotic. But there's an outcry out there.

And that's why when the president goes out and calls a big rally and then says, "Do citizens have anything to say?" I think that's the time when every government official gets diarrhea because they don't know what the citizens are going to say about them. And I've had some citizens making very strong statements denouncing officials that pretend that they are serving the people in Uganda.

I do believe that we have an opportunity to change direction, and the way to change direction is to go back to our constitution. For the first time this year, we want to work with everybody, including the Uganda Law Society, to celebrate what we call the constitution week. Let Ugandans know what the constitution actually says. I'm tired of having these talk show hosts saying all sorts of things. Somebody can say, "Today we want to read Article this and that. Article 237, land belongs to the people," and then people understand that that is actually what the constitution says. Somebody should talk about the role of the president. Do citizens know that the oath of the president includes a passage which does not exist in any other oath: to promote the welfare of the citizens of Uganda? It is only the president and vice president who subscribe to that oath. The rest of us don't have that line: to promote the welfare of the citizens of Uganda. Of course, we do it in support of the president as the chief executive. But for the president, it is explicit.

So I thank you again, Ellison, for this Twitter space. The dying minutes of the Twitter space were very solemn. Thanks to Senior Counsel Kohanga, and I think by bringing the bigger picture, he has challenged all of us to stop this business of "this judge has said this, this one has said this," and simply said, "The worth of a state in the long run is the worth of the individuals composing it." Those words should be emblazoned in gold letters. And he also challenged me personally: show that your leadership is not measured in titles. And I think these are words that I'm going to carry with me. And then he talked about order, integrity, and justice. These are—and then he says we should not go around, you know, saying, "Minister, minister, minister, you know my car has those two things, CM." You know, somebody said the CM means conman, so in my case now I had to quickly say, "No, no, no, it means chairman Ma," because we may laugh about it, but somehow that is what citizens tend to think about us: that how can CM mean conman yet it is intended to mean cabinet minister? So when Honorable Karanga says, "Do you know that minister means servant?" Now that is a bombshell, because we are always the first at the buffet line. They say, "Now our guest of honor, please come and serve," which is again contrary to our culture. Actually, in our culture, the king eats last, incidentally. So somehow we have turned things a bit upside down.

I want to thank you so much. We are not in South Korea, but it is a bit late also for all of us. Thank you so much, and I wish you the best in this struggle. At least when you give a name to a disease, the medicine will be found. This is what you are doing. Thank you. Your shoulders. You'll try and do your best to implement it and see whether you can get a result. I know you are not just talking. I know you will do it. And I'm glad that these people have been able to sit down and listen to you. I'm so happy because I know you are going to try your best. And I want you to start with my friend, my very good friend, the Honorable Chief Justice, because I know his goodness. I know that he could have been consumed by the moment, but I think that everything will be sorted. I believe in you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.

Okay, I think it's now time for us to wind up this space, and good night and good morning. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night for everyone. Um, usually, Honorable Ma, we play a song, but now, after the level and the depth of this conversation, I am almost embarrassed to suggest this song because I usually suggest it about myself. So I will not. And I usually suggest it to members of the law society. Uh, but now I think the quality of the conversation has risen to such a level that some members may have answers to it, but nonetheless, with courage and boldness, I say to the members of the law society or Honorable Minister, usually to everyone who has joined us: good morning, good afternoon, good evening, and good night. Usually at this time we propose a song, and I would have proposed—there's a song I always propose to members of society, but today I almost feel inadequate proposing it. But nonetheless, with courage and conviction, almost shamelessness, I will propose this song about myself to the members of the law society. Moses Mu's great [Music] Okay. Okay.