Rumours of irregularities in Judiciary bad for Uganda

The worst rumour so far circulating is that the Executive has commissioned an expert to give an opinion on whether retired senior judicial officers can be appointed acting judges.

The latest list of nominees for judicial office in Uganda was received with mixed feelings by the country’s legal fraternity. Some of the individuals nominated are deemed by many in the fraternity to be unfit for the offices they have been nominated to be vetted for. Several of them have been described in various fora as either corrupt or incompetent.

Apparently, most senior lawyers from the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have been nominated to become judges. The method used to pick winners and losers in the nomination in the political and lottery arenas is flawed.

Someone privy to the criteria used by the Judicial Service Commission has revealed the following scenario: The Commission has a chart on which there is shown, age, academic and professional qualifications, ability to perform, longevity in legal practice and physique of candidates.

Admittedly, some of these attributes are necessary preconditions for the identification of candidates. In my opinion, however, for a candidate to be nominated for judicial office, different criteria and much more is required. The most essential factors of this latter criteria include a candidate’s previous good record, testimonials from impartial and principled employers or citizens, colleagues, reports, capacity to withstand all sorts of pressures and temptations to please, annoy or get rich quickly and, above all, courage not to fear or be intimidated.

If the candidate is already a serving judicial officer, it is imperative that the Commission receives confidential reports and insists on face-to-face interviews with colleagues, critics and members both in and outside the legal fraternity.

This has become crucially important because of reports of incompetence and corruption in the Uganda Judiciary which are spreading like wild fires.
It is further rumoured that some of the judicial nominations were made through external political and sectarian exertions of influence, including the wild one that it was with 2016 in mind that some names were given to the Commission. If true these are most regrettable reasons for appointing judges.

The sooner this country introduces public and transparency in the vetting of candidates, the better it will be for the proper administration of Justice.
The worst rumour so far circulating is that the Executive has commissioned an expert to give an opinion on whether retired senior judicial officers can be appointed acting judges.
The Constitution empowers the Chief Justice to request the President to appoint an Acting Supreme Court, Court of Appeal or High Court Judge provided there is business pending or accumulating in any of those courts.

The appointment maybe for a specified period or otherwise.
In fact, at the time of the retirement of a dozen or more judges from the Uganda courts, the now outgoing Chief Justice, Benjamin Odoki, promised to persuade the Executive to appoint some of the retirees from those courts to act as judges and tackle the backlog of cases that was mounting.

Alas, it appears that his Lordship failed in those efforts. That brings us to another false rumour that is circulating in judicial and legal circles to day.
That rumour is that some expert has been employed by the government to investigate and recommend whether a retired Chief Justice or retired Deputy Chief Justice can be reappointed in an acting capacity in any of the three courts of record.

This, of course, is unconstitutional and impossible. A study of the Uganda Constitution and laws, precedents, traditions and practices in similar jurisdictions as well as dictates, ethics, integrity and meanings or interpretations placed on any of them, however extensive or liberal, all prove irrefutably that such a proposal is and frankly impossible and unattainable.

The consideration and interpretation of the Uganda Constitution of 1995 as amended in 2005 and subsequently interpreted, and in particular, Articles, 128, 144, 142, 253, do not permit a situation where a retired or retiring Chief Justice or Deputy Chief Justice can be retained or reappointed beyond the Constitutional limits.

Consequently, this latest rumour is the most vicious and perhaps was intended to maximise damage to the reputation of the government.

Justice Kanyeihamba is a retired
Supreme Court Judge. gwkany@yahoo.com