Is the Judiciary ready for AI in the dispensation of justice?

In the ever-evolving landscape of justice, Uganda’s Judiciary has notably embraced electronic methods in recent times, encompassing electronic evidence, audio-visual link proceedings, and innovative practices like the conducted live proceedings from Kigo prison during the peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. 

As societies globally grapple with the increasing presence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), various nations have taken bold steps to integrate AI into their legal systems. China, for instance, boasts a significant reduction in judges’ workloads by over a third through the use of AI systems, while in Argentina, AI aids district attorneys in crafting decisions for intricate cases.

Adhering to the sociological school of thought adage “law changes as society changes,” the justice system must adapt to pivotal developments, such as the imminent influence of the Internet-native Generation Z projected to steer society in 2050 and the escalating utilisation of AI. Notably, in Uganda, concerns about AI surfaced, when some universities criticised students reportedly using the technology to accomplish coursework tasks. 

For judicial officers, Chat GTP, Case text, Case Mine, another GPT-powered legal AI Chabot are the commonly embraced AI among others,  designed to prepare for depositions, summarise legal documents, and review them for compliance.

The inefficiencies in Uganda’s justice system, marked by case backlogs and the strain on judicial officers, necessitate a transformative solution. Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers a potent remedy by streamlining administrative tasks such as outlining, summarising, and paraphrasing, as well as composing letters and emails. When prompted correctly, AI can enhance productivity, facilitate in-depth legal research, and provide improved access to legal information, thereby optimising resource utilisation and saving time. 

This results in a significant reduction in case backlogs, as AI’s swift response to novel situations contrasts with the conventional practice of adjournments for proper answers. The benefits extend to increased efficiency, quality output, and resource conservation, presenting a promising avenue for the evolution of Uganda’s justice system. 

The use of AI in Uganda’s justice system comes with inherent risks that demand attention. AI’s reliance on databases may yield inaccurate or non-authoritative answers, as the internet contains both credible and misleading information. To mitigate this, a credibility check on uncited information using reliable sources like Google Scholar is essential. 

Ensuring confidentiality, privacy, accountability, accuracy, and preventing bias and security breaches are paramount. Additionally, the risk of information overload underscores the need for defined limits on wording and task-specific parameters. Vigilance, careful validation, and setting clear boundaries can navigate these red flags, ensuring a responsible and effective integration of AI in the justice system.

The UK, particularly England and Wales, has long been a model for Uganda, influencing legislative practices rooted in colonial history. With the UK’s advanced technological development, Daniel Hemming and Olivia Dhein’s insights on the “First ever judicial AI guidance published for courts and tribunals in England and Wales” signifies the active integration of AI in dispute resolution within English courts and tribunals. Thus it serves as a timely reminder to Uganda’s judiciary to prioritise training for our officers in this transformative technology, ensuring alignment with global advancements and fostering efficient and effective justice delivery. 

In conclusion, the adoption of AI is imperative for the effective dispensation of justice in Uganda. 
Early training of judicial officers is essential to integrate this technology seamlessly into the Justice system.

Mr Thomas Omusolo is a lawyer and legal researcher                                                                    
[email protected]