Mayanja on judiciary role in building a happy state

Emphasising the importance of the proper administration of justice in developing a harmonious and happy state, Abu Mayanja highlighted the significance of the human factor in the making and implementation of law. He stressed that it was in the state’s interests that [the] government employed and protected judicial officers who, like any other human beings, live and face societal problems. 

Because the proper administration of justice depends on objective, unbiased decisions, judges should be assured of financial security to avoid any temptations of making subjective decisions for financial gain. 

Further, judicial officers should not be overworked nor work in harmful or inconvenient environments. There was, therefore, a need to appoint suitable and sufficient judges to cover cases that were brought in the country’s courts. It was also vital that the state should provide proper physical facilities in which justice is administered, including courthouses, law libraries, books and good transport. 

Lastly, he advised that the state should realise the critical role played by lawyers. The role of lawyers was not to defend but to find and expose criminals. For him, the function of lawyers was to make sure that justice was rendered to every citizen.

Human factor crucial
When debating the Amendment of 1957 Electoral Law, Mayanja said the human factor was crucial in the administration of justice because human beings can be objective or subjective. The law was made and implemented by human beings whose subjectivity is planted on every inch of their decisions. However, the aim of law should be to reduce, minimise or eliminate human subjectivity by being drafted very clearly and implemented judiciously.

“My contribution is that, it is not the law, it depends on the people who operate that law who are at trial. You can make your law as full proof as human ingenuity can make it, but remember that law will be drafted by a human being, who has the human mind, as soon as you have finished with it, another human mind will go about it in trying to find loopholes and believe me, Mr Speaker, they will find loopholes. If this time they poured ink, next time they may do something else,” he said, drawing laughter in the House.

Interim basis
While debating on the Judicial Officers’ Bill, 1966, Mayanja warned the government that if judges are to protect the liberties and freedoms of people, they must be protected in their positions by the Constitution. They, therefore, should never be appointed on an acting basis or be put on probation. 

Reacting to Mr Basil Bataringaya’s question on whether judges should be observed, Mayanja insisted that, unlike civil servants, the protection of tenure of judges was guaranteed in the Constitution. That constitutional guarantee aimed at giving them the power to make independent decisions without the influence of other arms of the government. If appointed on an interim basis, they might favour the appointing authority to get confirmed as judges. Mayanja again lamented the failure of the state to appoint African judges on the bench when there were so many qualified people to work as judges.

“Ever since we became independent, we have not appointed a single substantive High Court judge—or if we have, they might have appointed one—but we have made three or four acting appointments,” he told the House, adding, “We are appointing judges, we are appointing acting judges and their position may well be very serious, and whereas I can understand the appointment of an old man like Col Baerlein who was then about 78, who was an expatriate, who was expected not to last long—I mean, God said so, he died.”

Judges’ workload
Mayanja felt that the insufficiency of judges in the country was denying the people of Uganda the justice they needed and expected from the state. It was revealed that in three months preceding February 1968, 53 civil cases were removed from being heard due to lack of judges, one judge tried 36 cases of homicides in three years and Parliament approved the appointment of 12 judges, but only one had been appointed, Justice Phadke. The government did not seem to have a full explanation.

“Does the minister think that it is desirable for one High Court judge at one single session to try as many as 36 cases of homicide alone? Will the minister say whether or not [the] government intends to honour the wishes of this House that the number of judges shall be 12? And if so, when is it intending to do so?” he asked Dr JSL Zake, the acting Attorney General, during a plenary session on February 19, 1968.

He added: “In view of the daily growing volume of work of the High Court, will the Attorney General recommend to Parliament that the number of judges of that court be increased from 12 to 15? Will he also consider the stationing of resident judges at some of the more important centres outside Kampala like Mbale, Gulu and Fort Portal or Mbarara?”

Mayanja thought that justice could only be well administered if there were enough judges working in [an] acceptable environment made up of good courtrooms, offices and libraries. He felt that law books were so important in providing the necessary information and reference to judges, lawyers and the general public and that the government should make sure that they were available in places where justice was administered.

Role of lawyers
While speaking on the Police (Amendment) Bill, 1967, on February 7, 1967, Mayanja noted that the role of lawyers in society was the proper administration of justice. He emphasised that it was not the function of lawyers to protect criminals. Their role was to make sure that justice was rendered to each individual or group. Once a lawyer becomes aware that the client was a criminal, he must think twice before defending such a person. 

He then pointed out that law in Uganda should be administered on the assumption that 10 guilty people should go unpunished than one innocent person punished for a crime he did not commit. For Mayanja, it was a lawyer’s work to see that justice was done and that no one was punished for a crime he did not commit. Lastly, he repeated that the police must always use their powers reasonably.