Trial sessions of suspects online a welcome move

The launch of the virtual court system that will see the Judiciary hold court sessions through video-conferencing is several steps forward in the quest to dispense justice faster. For several years now, the cries over delayed justice have been so deafening that members of the public have lost trust in the Judiciary because suspects would take ages to be processed through the system for several reasons.

Just more than two years ago, a report by Case Backlog Reduction Committee (CBRC), revealed that 155,400 cases were pending at all levels of courts. The committee chair - then Court of Appeal Judge - Richard Buteera, attributed the delay in adjudication of cases to poor work attitudes and performance of judicial officers, limited powers of lower courts, inadequate number of judicial staff as well as ill-preparation of advocates.

Yet even with the delay, the nature of cases with the highest degree of delays is worrying. For instance, the report showed that criminal cases constituted 44 per cent of unresolved cases, civil cases (33 per cent), land cases (14 per cent), family cases (three per cent), and commercial cases constituted two per cent.

There have also been numerous appeals to the government to recruit more judicial officers and have them get better remuneration, but these have largely remained unheeded, affecting the system in one way or the other. Hopefully, the development means that judges will be able to handle cases from several places and avoid backlog.

Equally, the high-tech move will also lift a heavy burden off the shoulders of Prisons services. They will no longer have to transport and secure suspects all the way from prison to court.

For instance, the officer-in-charge of Luzira upper prison, Mr Moses Sentalo, said: “The system will save us the costs involved in the back and forth transportation of prisoners to courts as well as the stress that comes with moving high risk inmates. Imagine transporting one inmate to court requires five prison officers handling different roles; driver, gunman, orderly, warder and supervisor.”

World over, magistrates’ courts have in the past 10 years been able to conduct virtual court sessions albeit with some degree of resistance. For example, a 2018 study in the UK by Transform Justice suggests that video-conferencing threatens defendants’ rights and undermines trust in the justice system.

The report said defendants in virtual court hearings find it difficult to hold confidential discussions with their lawyers, become disconnected from remote proceedings and may be disadvantaged during sentencing.
Every innovation is ought to meet some difficulties, but the intention of this – if well managed – is a good one.