Humanist

As a young girl growing up in the 1970s, the time when the experiment of the nation-state Uganda was in its infancy, it was hammered in our belief system that judicial officers were inherently law abiding. That in execution of their duties and in their conduct of Court business, judicial officers are bound by existing law. That they are fearless and ensure that no one, not even the President, is the above the law.

Indeed, when I read about the body of work of our judicial officers of the past, such as for example, Chief Justice Benedicto Kagimu Mugumba Kiwanuka (RIP), my nostalgia is hightened. History holds that Justice Kiwanuka was strictly compliant with the law of the land. To the extent he had the courage to defy President Idd Amin. It is recorded in history that Justice Kiwanuka refused to facilitate President Amin’s disregard of the law, a refusal it is believed for which he paid the ultimate price of being executed.

I am nostalgic that the quality and caliber of our current judicial officers seems generally wanting. That is in comparison to what I read about Justice Kiwanuka. I think it is among the reasons that I enjoyed reading Counsel Paul Mukiibi’s view point, “Judge Ssekana’s injunctive order against ULS puts judiciary on spot,” as published in The Observer.

Mr. Mukiibi’s view point provides great insights into what is to be expected from judicial officers in their conduct of Court business; and therefore, it provides much needed civic education to the general populace, especially us who are not officers of the Court. His view point focuses specifically on Justice Musa Ssekaana’s injunctive order against the Uganda Law Society (ULS), which I read between the lines is really about frustrating the ULS Presidency of Isaac Ssemakadde. 

Sadly, it appears Justice Ssekaana’s ULS order is representative of and demonstrates seeming widely prevailing brazen gross miscarriage of justice, by judicial officers. As in Justice Ssekaana is apparently not the only judicial officer doing it. A school of thought posits that the state of affairs of the current malpractice of judicial officers is so due to:

• State pressure
• Individual judicial officer legal incompetence
• Greed
• Corruption
• All these factors

Surmising that it has seemingly become the norm for judicial officers to comfortably depart from earlier reasoning of Court, as in not premise their rulings on precedents; to ignore valid evidence; to ignore false evidence; to manufacture own invalid evidence not in the plaints before them; and to flagrantly demonstrate bias in delivering rulings (more accurately in ‘killing of cases’) incompatible with the law.

I have experienced a case in which a Registrar, denied an application for court protection (a Temporary Injunction); and proceeded to also dismiss the main application at the same time, similar to how Justice Ssekaana handled the ULS matter. Good for the disenfranchised plaintiff, their legal team, Okalang Law Chambers, is highly competent and successfully appealed the ruling of said Registrar.  The huge cost to plaintiff of the Registrar’s ruling is a story for another day.

The point I am making is that I know others who have experienced exactly similar rulings such as Ssekaana’s in the matter of ULS and by other judicial officers. And what is painful for the wanainchi, the clients of the Bar, is to see such seeming incompetent, greedy and or corrupt judicial officers, transferred and or promoted, with seeming no consideration of their past rulings. Yes, said Registrar given as an example in this post was transferred and promoted, it appears.

Tantamount, incompetent, greedy and corrupt judicial officers are seemingly rewarded for delivering miscarriage of justice and are further empowered to continue doing so. Arguably, this is among genuine reasons as to why ULS President Ssemakadde’s messaging is resonating with significant sections of Ugandans. We want him to succeed big and to bring about restoration of a system that rewards judicial officers in accordance with compliance to best judicial practice.

Judicial officers found non-compliant to best judicial practice in conduct of Court business should not be rewarded with a transfer and or a promotion. They should be demoted and ordered to do remedial courses in the law and only when they have demonstrated competence in the law should they be promoted. Better still, such judicial officers non-compliant with best judicial practices should be weeded out of the judiciary – fired and or not allowed in.

Featured image @ Mr. Paul Mukiibi