The Judiciary Insider (Issue 7) by SLICK REPUBLIC LIMITED

ANNUAL JUDGES

CONFERENCE PROGRAMME

INSIDE

Issue 07 | August 2016 - January 2017

Judges set for 19th Annual Conference Judiciary launches new brand identity

INSIDE

There is no problem between Judiciary and Parliament - CJ

The Independence of Ugandaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Judiciary

Courts get technology for vulnerable witnesses

THROUGH THE LENS

Chief Justice Bart M. Katureebe (R) was the chief guest at the launch of the Centre for Public Interest Law State of the Judiciary report.

The Principal Judge opened a two day colloquium at Commonwealth Resort Munyonyo, organised by URSB and the Judicial Studies Institute.

Anti Corruption Justices Gidudu and Tibulya share a light moment with Ag. Registrar Festo Nsenga at the Anti Corruption Court Open Day held on December 8th, 2016.

The Chief Justice Bart Magunda Katureebe launching the 21st Annual Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) Review Report on October 26th, 2016.

Development partners from DFID/SUGAR project paid a courtesy call on the Chief Justice on November 7th, 2016. They discussed a number of issues concerning strengthening Uganda Government Anti-Corruption Regime.

Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo, (first row centre), with Mukono JLOS members after a training workshop on Plea Bargaining on November 16th, 2016.

A toast to Judiciary’s new look It is a privilege to take part in the 19th Annual Judges Conference. What makes it more of an honour for us at the Judiciary Insider is that it is a launch pad to our new Brand Identity for the Judiciary.

We are certainly excited about this because this is a project that has been in the works for the last two years. We hope you will quickly love and adopt our new amazing logo and the purple and gold colours – the Judiciary’s new unifying identity and platform for both internal and external communication. The new look will also get the public to reappraise the Judiciary as well as inspire the staff to meet the expectations of the general public. As we embark on this new brand identity, we pause to reflect on what this means. Put simply, Judiciary is all about dispensing Justice. Nothing less. Period.

15 | PJ Bamwine-led Sentencing Committee making headway 16 | Backlog stands at 114,809- First National Court Case Census Report 18 |Backlog Reduction recommendation expected in March 19 | First Gender Bench Book launched 20 | Courts get Audio-Video technology for vulnerable witnesses 22 | The Judicature (Visual-Audio Link) Rules, 2016 24 | Supreme Court recommends 10 reforms in Presidential Polls 26| Supreme Court’s Justice Tibatemwa shines at the Commonwealth

In order to communicate this unwavering determination, we needed to open up to modern trends. The use of corporate identity rather than reputation or image is not without significance. The word ‘corporate’ denotes an entity that is large and has many facets - something which ‘reputation’ or ‘image’ cannot do. It is an internationally recognised term that gives an immediate impression of a large and imposing institution. That it is a term usually found in the commercial world does not detract from the nature of the Judiciary. The term corporate identity has the additional advantage of placing the Judiciary firmly among its partners and stakeholders in the modern world. From the Judiciary Editorial Board, our hope for 2017, and for the years to come, is that Judiciary will continue to administer justice through resolving disputes between individuals, and between the State and individuals; Interpret the Constitution and the laws of Uganda; Promote the rule of law and contribute to the maintenance of order in society; Protect human rights of individuals as well as Safeguard the Constitution and uphold democratic principles. In a nutshell, the Judiciary is committed to dispensing justice in quick, affordable and transparent manner.

27 | Judiciary Scoops JLOS Awards 28 | 11-year-old Tyra Kabugo’s moment as Chief Justice

EDITORIAL TEAM Solomon Muyita

Editor

Sheila Wamboga

Editorial Coordination

Peter Mugeni Deo Akugizibwe

Design & Layout Photography

Editorial Board Lady Justice Lydia Mugambe-Ssali

Judge, High Court (Chair)

Paul Gadenya

Chief Registrar (Member)

Kagole Expedito Kivumbi Eliasa Omar Kisawuzi Solomon Muyita Jane Mugala, Elizabeth Akullo

Secretary to the Judiciary (Member) Registrar Research & Training (Member) Senior Comms Officer (Secretary) Law Reporting Officers (Members)

Publisher

Jofra House Plot Bugolo P.O.Box 11164, Ka Tel: +2 wallmarkt

Wishing you a happy 2017! Solomon Muyita Senior Communications Officer /Editor

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

PETTY CASH VOUCHER

No:

The Judiciary Insider is a product of the Quantity Description Judiciary Editorial Board. Email: editorialboard@judiciary.go.ug

19th

ANNUAL JUDGES

CONFERENCE Speke Resort Conference Center, Munyonyo, January 26th – 29th, 2017

CONFERENCE THEME: ‘The Uganda Judiciary as the guarantor of the Rule of Law’ Master of Ceremonies: The Chief Registrar, Judiciary

PROGRAMME DAY 1: THURSDAY, 26TH JANUARY 2017 TIME 4.00 pm – 00.00

PRESENTATION/ ACTIVITY Participants check in the Hotel

RESPONSIBLE H/W Dr. Gladys Nakibuule Kisekka (Dep. Registrar Research) and Mrs. Muwonge Josephine (Commissioner HR)

DAY 2: FRIDAY, 27TH JANUARY 2017 TIME 08.00 – 9.00 am

PRESENTATION/ ACTIVITY Arrival and Registration of participants at the conference venue CONSTITUTING OF THE 19TH AJC Anthems – Uganda, East Africa Prayer – Representative of the Muslim Faith OPENING CEREMONY Welcome Remarks by the Executive Director, JSI and Showcasing of the Uganda Judiciary Remarks by Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Address by The Hon. The Chief Justice Official Opening by the Guest of Honour Launch of the Criminal Bench Book and Judiciary’s Brand Identity Group Photograph Health Break

RESPONSIBLE DR Research

Key Note Address: The Role of The Judiciary As Guarantor of The Rule Of Law In The Contemporary World Plenary (Question and Answer) Lunch

Presenter: Prof. Hugh Corder, Professor of Public The Hon. Deputy Law, University of Cape Town Chief Justice All Comm. HR and Hotel Hon. Justice Dr. Yorokamu Bamwine, Principal Judge

2.40 – 3.10 pm 3.10 – 3.30 pm

Panel Presentation On The Performance Of The Courts: The High Court The Court of Appeal/ Constitutional Court The Supreme Court

3.30 – 4.30 pm 4:30 – 5:00 pm

Plenary (Question and Answer) Tea

All Comm. HR and Hotel

6.00 - 8.00 pm

Cocktail

Comm. HR, DR Training and Hotel

8:00 pm -

Dinner (By Coupon)

All

9.00-9.10 am

9:10 – 9:25 am 9.25 – 9.30 am 9.30- 10.00 am 10:00 –10: 45 am 10:45-10:50 am 10:50 –11:00 am 11:00 – 11:30 am 11:30 am – 12:00 pm 12.00-1.00 pm 1.00 – 2.00 pm 2.00 – 2:40 p.m.

CHAIR

Chief Registrar Hon. Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo,

Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Esther Kisaakye Kitimbo

Hon. Kahinda Otafire Hon. Justice Bart M. Katureebe H.E. The President of the Republic of Uganda

Comm. HR and Hotel

Hon. Justice Steven Kavuma, Deputy Chief Justice Hon. Justice Jotham Tumwesigye

Hon. Lady Justice Stella Arach- Amoko

DAY 3: SATURDAY 28th, JANUARY 2017 TIME 08.30- 09.00 am 9.00 – 10:00 a.m. 10.00 –11.00 am 11.00 –11.30 am 11.30 –12.30 pm 12:30 – 12:40 pm 12.40 – 1.00 pm 1.00 -2.00 pm

PRESENTATION/ ACTIVITY Registration of participants Prayer by a Representative of the Seventh Day Adventists Faith The Role of an Independent Judiciary in Emerging Democracies Plenary (Question and Answer) Health Break Enhancing Corporate Governance Among The Three Arms of Government To Foster The Rule of Law and National Development Comments on the Topic Plenary (Question and Answer) Lunch Break

2.00 – 3.00 pm

Combating Real and Perceived Corruption in the Ugandan Judiciary

3. 00–3.45 pm 3.45– 4.00 pm

Plenary (Question and Answer) Health Break

3:45 – 5:30 pm

Judges’ Meeting

7.00 –9.00 pm

Cultural Gala

RESPONSIBLE DR Research

CHAIR

Hon. Mr. Justice Carl Singh, Chancellor of the Courts, Guyana All Comm. HR and Hotel

Hon. Retired Justice A.N. Karokora

Dr. Busingye Kabumba, Faculty of Law, MUK

Hon. Lady Justice Faith Mwondha

Hon. Justice B.J. Odoki, Chief Justice Emeritus Comm. HR and Hotel Panelists: 1. Justice Irene Mulyagonja (IG) (7 Mins) 2. Ms. Cissy Kagaba (ACCU) (7 Mins) 3. Justice Jotham Tumwesigye (JIC) (7 Mins) 4. Uganda Law Society (7 Mins) All Comm. HR and Hotel

Moderator: Charles Mwangusya

-Justices and Judges -Free afternoon for others DR Research and Comm. HR

DAY 4: SUNDAY 29th, JANUARY 2017 TIME 7:15 – 8:00 am

DAY 4: SUNDAY 29th , JANUARY 2017 Prayers

8.30 – 9. 00 am 9.00 – 9. 50 am

Registration Enhancing the Rule of Law through Land and Family Justice for All

9.50 – 10.30 am 10.30 – 11.00am

Plenary (Question and Answer) Health Break

11.00 – 11. 45 pm

Investing in the Rule of Law through Sustainable Resourcing of the Judiciary

11.45 – 12.30 pm 12.30- 1.00 pm

Plenary (Question and Answer) Strengthening Partnerships between the Judiciary and PRESENTER: the Media to Enhance Access to Justice for All 1. Hon. Minister of Information and ICT 2. Mr. Robert Kabushenga (CEO, Vision Group) 3. Dr. Peter Mwesige (African Center for Media Excellence). Plenary (Question and Answer) All Lunch Break Comm. HR and Hotel Rapporteur Conference Resolutions 1. Progress on the 18th AJC Resolutions 2. Presentation of the draft 19th AJC Resolutions and Approval

1.00-1.30 pm 1.30 –2.30 pm 2.30 – 2.40 pm

OFFICIAL CLOSING 2:40 – 2:50 pm 2.50 – 3:20 pm 3:20 – 3:40 pm END OF PROGRAMME

RESPONSIBLE Representative of Inter Religious Council and H/W Mugala Jane DR Research PRESENTERS: 1. Hon. Justice Moses Mukiibi 2. Ministry of Lands Commissioner 3. Administrator General 4. Mr. Pius Bigirimana, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Gender

Hon. Lady Justice Prof. Lillian Tibatemwa Ekirikubinza

Comm. HR and Hotel 1. Hon. Justice Dr. Yorokamu Bamwine (15 mins) Hon. Justice Stephen Egonda- Ntende 2. Mr. Kagole Kivumbi (15 mins) 3. Mr. Keith Muhakanizi (15 mins) 4. Dr. Kisamba Mugerwa (15 mins)

Remarks by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Hon. Kahinda Otafire Affairs Official Closing by the Hon. the Chief Justice of Uganda Hon. Justice Bart M. Katureebe Tea

CHAIR

Comm. HR and Hotel

Hon. Justice Richard Buteera

Hon. Lady Justice Dr. Esther Kisaakye Kitimbo

ANNUAL JUDGES

CONFERENCE

The 19th Annual Judges Conference The 19th Annual Judges Conference will be held on January 26th – 29th under the theme: The Uganda Judiciary as the Guarantor of the Rule of Law. In his invitation letter to participants, Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo, the Executive Director Judicial Studies Institute, said the theme for the Conference was chosen to; Highlight the role and importance of the

Judiciary in defending and guaranteeing the rule of law in society; To identify and address gaps and challenges the Judiciary faces in carrying out its mandate, which are critical to fostering and guaranteeing the rule of law; To examine the role of corporate governance in promoting and guaranteeing the rule of law; and To share best practices from the rest of the world on how the Judiciary can effectively guar-

antee the rule of law in a fast changing society. For the first time ever, the Annual Judges Conference will host acclaimed academics and technocrats in different fields as well as Justice Carl Singh, the president of the courts of Guyana among other distinguished speakers.

President Museveni’s goodwill for the Judiciary

President Museveni is expected to grace the 19th Annual Judges Conference 2017 at the Munyonyo Commonwealth Resort and Speke Resort Munyonyo in Kampala. This will be one of the many times that Uganda’s Fountain of Honour will open the Conference of Judges. The President has, in some of his recent encounters with the judges, tagged the Judiciary as one of the State’s “special operations wing”. In his September 2015 special meeting held at the State House in Entebbe, President Museveni expressed good will for the judges and the Judiciary, and made some of the following promises: • Judges should retire with full pay and full facilities.

• Called for continuous dialogue within the three arms of government; the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

case management system providing for E-filing to reduce timelines and loss of files.

• Encouraged judicial officers to establish a SACCO that the government would facilitate.

• Proposed institutional housing for judicial service officers.

• Promised that government would support the Shs36 billion five-year ICT strategic plan to roll out a robust

• Government was fully committed to providing vehicles for all judges and Magistrates in the country.

These are some of the promises including the Administration of the Judiciary Bill that the President is expected to address during the 19th Annual Judges Conference.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

ANNUAL JUDGES

CONFERENCE

Justice Carl Singh

Justice Carl Singh will present a paper on The Role of an Independent Judiciary in Emerging Democracies. Since 2005, Justice Carl Singh has been the chancellor of the courts and as such he is the head of the Judiciary in Guyana. He is assisted by the Chief Justice and several Justices of Appeal. Mr. Singh is married and a father of two children. He was a schoolteacher before proceeding to study law. He comes from a rice farming family and values the importance of agriculture. He qualified as an attorney-at-law about 30 years ago and went into private practice. He was appointed a temporary Land Court Judge and served credibly in this position for about nine months. He returned to his private practice and was later appointed a Judge of the High

Court. He served in this position doing both civil and criminal cases and was subsequently promoted as a Justice of Appeal. He served with credit in the Court of

Appeal and was appointed Chief Justice. In 2005, he was appointed to perform the duties of Chancellor and has been doing this since then.

Professor Hugh Corder

Prof. Corder will deliver the keynote address on The Role of the Judiciary as guarantor of the Rule of Law in the Contemporary World. Hugh Corder has been Professor of Public Law at UCT since 1987 and a Fellow of the University since 2004. A graduate of the universities of Cape Town, Cambridge and Oxford, his main teaching and research interests fall within the field of Constitutional and Administrative Law, particularly judicial appointment and accountability and mechanisms to further administrative accountability.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Professor Corder has been widely involved in community work since his student days, concentrating on popular legal education, race relations, human rights and the abolition of the death penalty. He served as a technical adviser in the drafting of the transitional Bill of Rights for South Africa. He has written two books, co-authored two and edited a further seven, and has contributed many articles and chapters in books.

Interview

There is no problem between Judiciary and Parliament - CJ The Chief Justice, Bart M. Katureebe, has broken the silence on the recent stand-off between Parliament and the Judiciary resulting from an interim Constitutional Court that was issued by the Deputy Chief Justice, Steven Kavuma on January 9th. Justice Kavuma’s order stopped debate, discussions and inquiries into the controversial bonus payment made to government officials for handling the dispute between Uganda and Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd. However, the order has since been overtaken by events following the withdrawal of the petition and applications by a one Eric Sabiiti who petitioned the court. The Chief Justice weighs in on the matter. What do you have to say about the interim order that was issued by Justice Stephen Kavuma stopping investigations and discussions into the alleged presidential handshake? What I have to say is that courts do not go out to solicit for matters to be brought before us. Someone brings a petition, files it before us in court, the judge hears it and makes an order as prayed by the party who brought the petition. That order may be erroneous, may be wrong, may be outside his jurisdiction, but he has made an order as a judge.

appeal, so the three justices will hear the party who is aggrieved and make a decision. This has happened, it’s a normal way of doing things. Sometimes they may reverse that decision and make a different decision. I am saying that if one judge made a decision that is found disagreeable, whether by parliament or government, I do not know, they had an option, and they had a whole office of the Attorney General to advise on that option. That’s why I am saying that

What we require the parties to do is to challenge that order, and we have systems, we have the law, we have the rules under which you can make that challenge. If for example you go to the Constitutional Court or the Court of Appeal, and a judge there makes a decision as a single judge, the rules require that the party that is dissatisfied with that decision makes a reference to a panel of three judges, excluding the one who made the decision. This is some sort of in-house

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Interview

I do not accept that there is a problem between Judiciary and Parliament – because that is not true. Are you in other words saying this is a problem between Parliament and a one Justice Steven Kavuma? What I have explained is that you have a problem with a decision made by a judge. Until that decision is reversed or revised in whatever way, it is the decision of court. All we are asking is whoever is aggrieved, whether Parliament or the Attorney General, follow the rules, and as the Speaker directed, have it vacated. And if you are not still satisfied by the decision made by the panel, appeal to the Supreme Court. That’s the way we have been operating and that’s what the rule of law requires. Because, if we start dismissing court orders because we do not like them when they don’t suit us, where do you draw the line? Tomorrow it may be someone else… If you want to follow rule of law in this country, follow the law. Because if we start shouting at each other and start talking about an imaginary conflict between the Judiciary and Parliament, where shall we end? This is an imaginary conflict, because I have never sat in any meeting of judges and we decided to fight Parliament or the Executive. We make these orders and sometimes they are against the Executive, and Government is not happy with us; sometimes they are against individual members and they are not happy with us. But that’s the nature of our work. I am asking the judges, the magistrates and the registrars to remain steadfast in their work and follow the law and make decisions in accordance with the law and in the interest of justice as they see it. And if someone is dissatisfied with their de-

Rt. Hon. Rebecca Kadaga, Speaker of Parliament.

cisions, there are measures in place to have it corrected. There are all sorts of names that have been used to describe Justice Kavuma’s order. The Speaker of Parliament used a strong word to describe it. What would you say about such language? No, I don’t need to go into giving it names or baptising it names. It is an order of Court. In Judicial circles, when that order comes for review, the appropriate court may call it a misconceived order or an illegality. There are terms which we can use in Judiciary, but we do not use the sort of language that I saw is being used in Parliament. Do you mean the Speaker acted out of order? That’s not for me to say. So how would you term it yourself? I have not reviewed it. But as Chief Justice, I also preside over the Supreme Court when it sits as an appellate court over decisions of the Constitutional Court. So if there is a matter in the Constitutional Court now which has a possibility of reaching me on appeal, it’s not up to me now to start commenting on it and term-

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

ing it in one way or the other, because in the event it came to me on appeal, I’ll be the first to say I am conflicted because I took a stand on it. So I am a judicial officer, first and foremost and this is a judicial matter, and we must move about it properly. Otherwise, we are all shooting at each other for no reason. Are you concerned about Justice Kavuma’s performance? Why? I know a lot of people from what I read in the papers and what I am getting – people writing complaints and so on. All these matters must be investigated, and sometimes, you may find he has a side of the story as well. I don’t think people have taken the trouble to listen to his side of the story. We make orders, some of them rub people the wrong way and so on. So really I cannot sit here and say whether I am satisfied with his performance or not. He is doing his job. People can take their matters elsewhere – you know we have the Judicial Service Commission which is supposed to be our overseer, and people can take their matters there. But then what’s your responsibility as the head of the Judiciary?

Interview

I have a responsibility and I am telling you that if I have asked the judges to stick to the law, to stick to the interests of justice in their adjudication of cases, where their decision is to be challenged, then it should be challenged properly. I don’t think it helps us to start imputing wrong motives on a judge or a judicial officer because of a decision they have made. That is something that would undermine the confidence and the performance of the judicial officers. So if someone thinks there has been misconduct on the part of a particular judge, registrar or magistrate, there are ways we can handle that. We understand a lot of complaints have been filed against Justice Kavuma. Will he be investigated? Well, this will have to be done by the Judicial Service Commission. I think you people (media) have published a letter which was written by the Speaker – it was supposed to go to the President, but I saw you people discussing it on your news. But in that letter, the speaker has asked for investigations, so let the investigations be done. And once the investigations are done, then all sides will be listened to and a decision will be found. Away from Court Orders, Isn’t it becoming some sort of tactic that as long as the state is interested in you, they can pick you up soon as you are released on bail and prefer fresh charges on you? It would worry me if anybody was arrested without reasonable cause. The law says that even you as a private citizen have grounds to believe that someone has committed an offence or is about to commit an office, you can make an arrest, provided you bring them to court. And if you bring them to court, the law gives them a right to apply to be released on bail, and the court may release him on bail.

After serving as Secretary to the Judiciary (SJ) for over eight years, Mrs Dorcas Okalany handed over office to the new SJ, Mr. Kagole Expedito Kivumbi on November 15th, 2016

New Secretary to the Judiciary takes office

The Judiciary has a new accounting officer, Mr. Kagole Expedito Kivumbi. He takes over the reins from Mrs Dorcas W. Okalany.

Mrs Okalany, after years of dedicated service as Secretary to the Judiciary/ Permanent Secretary since 2008, called on the staff to accord the in-coming SJ maximum cooperation. “Tell your new boss the truth and continue making yourselves relevant to earn his trust and confidence in you,” said Mrs Okalany. Mr. Kivumbi joined the Judiciary from the Judicial Service Commission, where he was Permanent Secretary for more than seven years, among his other responsibilities in Government Service, Speaking to the Senior Management Team at the brief handover ceremony at the Judiciary Headquarters, Mr. Kivumbi emphasised building on the existing team work to “have the job done”.

“Teamwork is one of the few things I cherish because I believe no one can work alone...I look forward to having an active working relationship with you to do what we are required to do,” he said. Mr. Kivumbi has already embarked on familiarisation tours of the different departments and courts. In his brief remarks, Mr. Kivumbi said that he keeps an open-door policy, and likes open consultations. In exercise of Article 174 (2) of the Constitution, President Yoweri Museveni on November 4th, 2016, reshuffled permanent secretaries. A move which saw Mrs Okalany, move to the Ministry of Lands and Urban Development.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Interview

East African judicial officers make way for President Yoweri Museveni (centre) after closing a three-day East African Magistrates and Judges Conference in Kampala on November 3rd, 2016

Uganda hosts successful EAMJA Conference The 13th East African Magistrates and Judges Association (EAMJA) Conference was held at the Speke Resort Munyonyo in Kampala.

he Hon. Prime Minister, Ruhakana Rugunda officiated at the opening ceremony His Excellency President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni was chief guest at the closing of the three day Conference. President Museveni called upon the judiciary in Uganda to broaden its perspective about the transformation of society to include development. “If you do not talk about wealth and how it can be generated and protected by the law, then the legal system will just protect poverty,” he said. He said for our society to become stable so that justice is dispensed easily, there is need for the judiciary to promote justice, liberation, recovery, de-

velopment and transformation. President Museveni also called upon the judiciary to make laws that benefit East African citizens. “If you proceed on the old colonial policies, you will miss some issues. Some of the colonial practices were good and others bad,” he noted. The Hon. Chief Justice Bart Katureebe, said that the judiciary is indispensable in the transformation of the society. He urged all delegates to take the deliberations from the conference and use them to create an impact on their societies. The Hon. Prime Minister, Ruhakana Rugunda who officiated at the opening

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

ceremony said Government is looking at Judiciary to maintain stability and peace necessary for economic growth. He said it is a fact of life that investing in Judiciary is nolonger a luxury but a necessary pre-requisite for transformation of individual partner states in the region. The three-day Conference run under the theme: “Transformation of Judiciaries in East Africa for Improved Service Delivery.” The Conference attracted delegates from, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, South Sudan, Uganda, EACJ, Lesotho, Commonwealth Secretariat, Zanzibar, and the Commonwealth Magistrates and Judges Association (CMJA).

Experience

Another raid of the temple of justice Strange scenes played out at the Makindye Chief Magistrates Court in Kampala in August last year when a mob professing support for Police Chief Gen. Kale Kayihura stormed the court to block his prosecution for alleged torture.

t was Wednesday, (August 1st), when lawyers who were privately prosecutors in a torture case involving Inspector General of Police Gen. Kayihura and seven other police commanders took of refuge for hours in the Chief Magistrate’s chambers as hundreds of pro-Kayihura protesters turned riotous and threatened to harm them. Ms Polly Namaye, the then deputy Police Spokesperson said in a statement that the Police force “appreciates” the demonstrators for complying with the Public Order Management Act by notifying the force of their actions, but noted that there were “acts of intolerance”, blocking routes and barring entry into the court. No arrest, however, was made regarding the breaches that Ms Namaye’s statement pointed out. Gen. Kayihura was expected to appear before the Makindye Chief Magistrates’ Court to plead to charges of alleged torture that arose from the police’s brutal beating of supporters of Opposition leader Dr. Besigye in July 2016.

Not an isolated incident This was not the first time that courts were being raided. On November 16 , 2005, a group of gunmen, who later came to be known as the Black Mambas, raided the High Court in Kampala. The hooded men were on a mission to re-arrest suspected members of the People’s Redemption Army (PRA), a shadowy rebel outfit, upon being granted bail by then Justice Edmond Ssempa Lugayizi. The men are part of a group of PRA suspects who are charged with treason jointly with former Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) President Dr. Kizza Besigye for their alleged membership in a rebel movement. th

Protesters who raided the Makindye Chief Magistrates Court in August 2016.

Same script two years later

Two years later, on March 1st, 2007, about 50 plain clothed security officers raided the High Court in Kampala and rearrested five men whom court had granted bail after spending 15 months on remand. During the scuffle, lawyers, journalists and relatives of suspects were subjected to a scuffle that saw Lawyer Kiyemba Mutale assaulted by a senior police officer. The siege ended at around 8.30pm when the five victims attempted to leave the court premises in the company of the Deputy Chief Justice and the Principal Judge. The five were re-arrested and taken to Bushenyi and Arua where they were charged with murder. All the top judicial officers condemned the act before they together with lawyers went on strike for one week. The then Minister of Internal Affairs, described the strike as “an unwarranted decision” before adding that the government was investigating the matter and that appropriate action was to be taken after the results. Like the case with the 2005

raid by the Black Mambas, this incident was swept under the carpet.

Chief Justice assassinated As history points out, not even judicial officers have been spared. According to the first witness account of Daniel Mulemezi, a retired superintendent of police, it was on September 21st, 1972 when Uganda’s first black Chief Justice was kidnapped from his court chambers in Kampala. In his testimony to the Commission of Inquiry into the violation of Human Rights in Uganda from October 9th, 1962 to January 25th, 1986 sitting at the International Conference (now Serena Conference Centre) in Kampala, Mulemezi, who was witness number 140, wanted to debunk the mystery surrounding Kiwanuka’s death since 1972. Mulemezi also revealed that he saw the first arrest of Kiwanuka conducted by the PSU commander Ali Toweli and his deputy Kassim Obura who bundled Kiwanuka into the car and whisked him away.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Experience

Raiding courts unacceptable – Chief Justice The Chief Justice Bart Katureebe condemned the raid on Makindye Chief Magistrate’s Court by a rowdy mob supporting Gen Kale Kayihura, which frustrated the scheduled hearing of the police chief’s criminal case. “It strikes at the core of what the Constitution is all about; re-establishing the rule of law in this country,” the Chief Justice said.

e said the Judiciary as the third arm of government adjudicates cases between citizens and government, and other agencies. “Let the institutions work. It is really wrong for people to go and mobilise mobs to come and prevent us from doing our work; to come and frighten us from doing our work, and whoever is promoting them is really doing a disservice to the country,” the head of the Judiciary said.

er citizens would rather choose to be governed through mob justice or the rule of law. “If we want to be governed by the rule of law, then we must allow the institutions to operate and that is why the Constitution provides for the courts. The Constitution says they (courts) must be independent and are not subject to the control of any authority.”

The Chief Justice likened the raid on Makindye Chief Magistrates Court in August 2016 to the infamous 2005 attack on the High Court by heavily armed security operatives who besieged the temple of justice. However, he was quick to draw lines between the two incidents; describing the one in 2005 as an “organised security raid” and the one at Makindye Chief Magistrates Court as a “mob raid.”

Well, I just found a complaint here from a group called Chapter4 about arrests at Gulu High Court but I had already asked the Chief Registrar to contact the judge in Gulu for a report on what happened, because I always want to know from my own officers what happened and then we can follow up

On the re-arrest of suspects at court

He said the raid pointed to a possible derailment. “If one side is going to organise mobs to prevent the courts from doing their job, to prevent lawyers from presenting the cases of their clients, then there is something fundamentally wrong and we must address it as a country and as citizens,” Justice Katureebe noted. “And this applies to all leaders, political leaders regardless of which political party you subscribe to.” The Chief Justice wondered wheth-

The Chief Justice Bart Katureebe

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

on the matter. It should be a matter of concern obviously if people are going to come to the premises of the court to effect arrests or whatever. We do not stop the security agencies from doing their work, but we have established from the time when there was Black Mamba, and we sat with the President as Judiciary and we got reassurances from the president, that type of thing would not happen again. So if there has been a recurrence, it is something we’ll be taking up again to make sure it does not reoccur. The president at that time apologised to the Judiciary and said it would not reoccur. I am not sure whether the arrests that have taken place now have been done on the premises of the court. Whenever the courts release someone, they always say unless there are other grounds for you to be held, you are discharged. So, if security people think they have got extra grounds for arresting someone, they should wait for the person to get out of the premises of the court and then re-arrest them. We need to establish exactly what happened… but we had an understanding with the government that such incidents should not happen – not in the premises of court. The security people need to do their work outside the courts so that the courts are allowed to do their work.

Administration

Judiciary Bill in offing Third Arm of the State seeks financial, administrative independence Fast-tracking the enactment of the Administration of the Judiciary law has been high on the Judiciary agenda. It was one of the commitments that the Hon. the Chief Justice Bart M. Katureebe, made last year. That he would engage all key stakeholders to ensure this law is in place as a way of improving efficiency in the administration of justice in Uganda.

he Judiciary in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs have prepared of the Administration of the Judiciary Bill, 2016 (AJB). The Bill seeks to operationalise Chapter 8 of the Constitution, the provision that buttresses the institutional, operational and administrative independence of the Judiciary. The drafting of the Bill follows wide consultations conducted with a number of stakeholders within the Judiciary, the Justice Law and Order Sector, the private sector, academia, civil society institutions and related government departments. Most of the stakeholders consulted were in agreement with the proposal to enact a law for the Administration of the Judiciary and made specific proposals in the draft Bill, which have been taken into account and addressed in the AJB 2016. One of the key proposals captured in the consultation process was the need to de-link the Judiciary staff from the mainstream Public Service. Efforts to have an independent Judiciary in Uganda are partly to align with

other Commonwealth countries laws, especially the East African Community neighbouring countries such as Kenya and Tanzania. Under the East African Community Treaty, Uganda has an obligation to harmonise with laws relating to administration of justice and the Judiciaries in the East African region. It is also good practice to benchmark what other countries in the Community have done in relation to the administration of the Judiciary.

Constitutional amendments The first draft of the AJB was in 2012, and its principles were in December 2013 considered by Cabinet. The Bill was later deferred for further discussion pending the amendment of some provisions of the Constitution. Luckily, in August 2015, Parliament amended the Constitution through the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2015 (Act No. 12 of 2015) to make specific provision for the Judiciary. Section 6 of the Act amended Article 147 of the Constitution, relating to the functions of the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), to include the review of the terms and conditions of service of staff appointed under 148A of the Constitution.

Section 7 amended the Constitution by inserting a new Article 148A to provide for the Judicial Service Commission to appoint, discipline and remove such staff of the Judiciary as may be prescribed by Parliament.

Bill rationale The Constitution obliges all organs and agencies of the State to accord the courts such assistance as may be required to ensure the effectiveness of the courts. Article 126 provides for the source and exercise of judicial power. Article 127 provides for the participation of the people in the administration of justice. Article 128 provides for the independence of the Judiciary and prohibits any person or authority from interfering with the functions of the courts.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Administration

14-member Judiciary Advisory Committee to advise the Chief Justice on the functions and administration of the Judiciary. It is to be composed of representatives of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Registrars and Magistrates, Solicitor General, Secretary of the Treasury, JSC, Uganda Law Society and two members of the public. The Committee would advise the Chief Justice on matters of policies for planning and development of the Judiciary, ethics and integrity, financing of the Judiciary, personnel/staff development and welfare. Others include strategic and development plan of the Judiciary, the improvement of the administration of Justice and policies for continuous monitoring and evaluation of the Judiciary.

Its objectives

The Legal and Parliamentary Affairs Committeeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2nd Special Meeting with Judiciary Senior Management at the High Court in Kampala on April 13th, 2016.

The Constitution under Article 128 also makes the Judiciary self-accounting and protects the administrative expenses and emoluments for persons serving in the Judiciary by charging them on the consolidated fund. Article 133 of the Constitution vests the administration and supervision of the Judiciary on the Chief Justice and in that capacity empowers him to issue orders and directions to the courts for the proper and efficient administration of justice in Uganda. However, despite the guidance on the functioning and administration of the Judiciary in Chapter 8 of the Constitution, there is still lack of an enabling

law, and this has resulted in the lack of clarity in effectiveness and wasteful duplication of the judicial structure at the expense of the administration of justice.

Key proposals The following are some of the key proposals in the AJB: It provides for the Administration of the Judiciary by the Chief Justice who may, in consultation with the Judicial Service Commission, create, classify, change and abolish offices within the judicial service to ensure the efficient functioning of the Judiciary.

The AJB seeks to translate and amplify the principles set out in Chapter 8 of the Constitution through legislative provision to further the independence of the Judiciary and make it more effective and accountable to the people in the administration of justice. It is also intended to facilitate the improvement or the efficiency and effectiveness of the Courts of Judicature; to establish a Judiciary Advisory Committee to advise the Chief Justice in the administration of the Judiciary and to strengthen the independence of the courts in accordance with the Constitution. Other key objectives of the Bill include streamlining the administration of the courts; facilitating a judicial process that is committed to the expeditious determination of disputes, and to establish the Judicial Training Institute.

It also proposes the establishment of a

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Administration

donations approved by the minister responsible for Finance, and all monies received by the Judiciary in exercise of its functions. It also seeks to empower the Chief Justice to make regulations for the due administration of the Judiciary and to give effect to the provisions of the AJB.

Govâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t goodwill Good news is that Cabinet recently discussed the Administration of the Judiciary Bill, 2016, and approved it. The Minister Justice and Constitutional Affairs is expected to fast-track the publication of the Bill in the Uganda Gazette, table it in Parliament for debate and enactment.

Hon. Kahinda Otafiire, Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs Minister.

AJB proposes the establishment of sub-committees on Planning and Development, Judiciary Resources, Human Capital Development, ICT and Documentation, all under the Chief Justice required for the administration of the Judiciary. It provides for the establishment of the Inspectorate for the Judiciary and other inspectors to be appointed on terms and conditions prescribed by the Chief Justice. The Bill further provides for the Judiciary service to consist of judicial officers and staff of the Judiciary appointed by the JSC. The other Judiciary staffs to be appointed by JSC include court administrators, court clerks/interpreters, process servers, court librarians, court legal officers, research assistants, public relations officers, court transcribers, court drivers, court training officers and court attendants. The Bill however, proposes that professional cadres who do not have a direct link with judicial work and have their career path managed under the different ministries, departments and agencies continue to be sec-

onded to the Judiciary. It provides for the appointment of the Chief Registrar and Registrars, among others, responsible for performing the functions vested in the Chief Registrar by law and giving effect to policies and directions of the Chief Justice, deputy Chief Justice and the principal judge. The AJB also formerly recognises the position of Secretary to the Judiciary to perform the functions similar to those of permanent secretaries under Article 174 of the Constitution and Section 10 of the Public Service Act, 2008. It provides for the criteria and circumstances under which a judicial officer may move from the Judiciary to serve in other institutions. It empowers the Chief Justice to grant leave of absence to judicial officers who wish to take up temporary assignments outside the Judiciary for a period not exceeding five years without pay. The Bill further provides for the funds of the Judiciary to include money appropriated by Parliament, grants or

Prior to this, the office of the First Parliamentary Council drafted the Bill on the basis of a waiver issued by former Attorney General, Freddie Ruhindi, on April 19th, 2016 under Section Q-b of the Uganda Public Service Standing Orders 2010. Also, Finance Minister, Matia Kasaija, on May 2nd, 2016, issued a Certificate of Financial Implications confirming that the financial resources required to implement the provisions contained in the Bill will be accommodated within the budget for vote 101 relating to the Judiciary. The Judiciary has already created the Judicial Studies Institute within its structures to train Judiciary staff within its own funding, so this will not attract any other financial implications. Once enacted, the Chief Justice shall constitute the Judiciary Advisory Committee and the subcommittees provided for by the Bill. The Secretary to the Judiciary shall notify JSC of the prescribed categories of staff to be appointed.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Innovations

This Committee comprises:

Members of the Sentencing Guidelines Committee after one of their meetings in Kampala recently.

PJ Bamwine-led Sentencing Committee making headway Scenarios of having different sentences for the same offence committed under similar circumstances will soon be history. This follows a consultative meeting where draft sentencing guidelines for non-capital offences were presented. The meeting also doubled as the inauguration of the Sentencing Guidelines Committee by the Chief Justice Bart Magunda Katureebe on October 14th, 2016

committee chaired by the Principal Judge Yorokamu Bamwine has embarked on a process of reviewing non-capital offences’ sentencing guidelines before they are adopted by Courts. At the commissioning of the 17-member committee, the Chief Justice said it should find a way of reducing disparities in sentencing where some judicial officers abuse their discretion. He said, “we are currently focusing on sentencing guidelines and not sentencing rules. Sentencing guidelines are not intended to override the discretion of the judicial officer. They should not trammel the judicial officer, because there will always be cases when the interests of justice demand some degree of flexibility.” Uganda was the first African country to develop sentencing guidelines in 2013 when guidelines were made for the High Court to avoid wide disparity in sentences.

Currently, magistrates enjoy wide discretion in sentencing convicts. The Chief Justice said instituting sentencing guidelines in lower courts will go a long way in building public trust. “It is, therefore, important that sentencing guidelines are developed and routinely reviewed so as to assist in the proper determination of sentences within the criminal justice system, to promote consistency in sentencing and to make the reasons for particular sentences more transparent,” he said. The objective of the committee is to develop Sentencing Guidelines for magistrates courts as well as undertake a study to assess implementation of the Sentencing Guidelines with capital offences.

Terms of Reference I) Make recommendations to the Chief Justice to issue Sentencing Guidelines, principles and ranges for sentencing. II) Review the guidelines and provide

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

1.Justice Dr. Yorokamu Bamwine – Principal Judge, Chairperson 2.Justice Eladard Mwangusya – Justice of the Supreme Court, Member 3.Justice Elizabeth Musoke – Justice of the Court of Appeal, Member 4.Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo – Judicial Studies Institute, Member 5. Justice John Wilson Kwesiga – Head of Criminal Division of the High Court, Member 6. Justice Mike Chibita – Director of Public Prosecution, Member 7. Mr. William Byabashaija, Attorney General, Member 8. Mr. Paul Gadenya, Chief Registrar, Member 9. Mr. Kagole Expedito Kivumbi – Secretary to the Judiciary, Member 10. Dr. Johnson Byabashaija, Commissioner General Uganda Prisons, Member 11. Jacob Oboth Marksons, MP and chairperson Legal and Parliamentary Affairs, Member 12. Dr. Livingstone Ssewanyana, Executive Director Foundation for Human Rights, Member 13. Mr. Godfrey Kaweesa, President Uganda Judicial Officers Association, Member 14. Mr. Moses Kintu - National Community Service, Member 15. Representative of Uganda Law Society, Member 16. Mr. Emmanuel Baguma, Ag. Asst. Registrar Criminal Division, Member 17. Mr. Andrew Khaukha, Technical Advisor Judiciary, Secretary

a framework for setting penalties and ranges of sentencing; III) Revise penalties; IV) Advise on the use of the guidelines V) Establish a research, monitoring and development programme on sentences and their effectiveness; and VI) Monitor the implementation of the guidelines

Milestone

Chief Justice Hon. Bart M. Katureebe and Justice Minister Hon. Kahinda Otafiire at the Report launch in Kampala.

Backlog stands at 114,809 - First National Court Case Census Report

The Report from the first Judiciary Court Case Census - a process that involved physical count of case files across the country in December 2015 - was released on October 24th, 2016.

he census that was commissioned and conducted in December 2015 shows that the judiciary has 114,809 unresolved cases (as at December 9th), mostly in the criminal matters with majority in chief magistrates courts.Â The report released October 24th, 2016

in Kampala shows that Chief Magistrates Courts have a total of 11,474 pending cases; Grade One Magistrates Courts have a case backlog of 3,394 and Grade Two Magistrates Courts have 150 pending cases. In total, the lower courts have 15,018 pending cases. The High Court then follows in the order of having a big case log stand-

ing at 10,632 and the Court of Appeal at 3,201 cases. The Supreme Court has only 13 pending cases.Â The main objectives of the case census were to ascertain the reasons for the pending cases before the courts of law that have never been informed by empirical evidence or documented with interventions

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Milestone

Members of the National Court Case Census Taskforce.

This Committee comprises the following members: 1. Justice Richard Buteera, Court of Appeal Justice -Chairperson 2. Justice Egonda Ntende, Court of Appeal Justice –Vice Chairperson 3. Justice Esther Kisaakye Kitimbo, Justice of the Supreme Court -Member 4. Justice Geoffrey Kiryabwire, Court of Appeal Justice -Member 5. Justice Stephen Musota, High Court Judge-Member 6. Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo, High Court Judge -Member 7. Mrs. Dorcus. W. Okalany-Member 8. Mr. Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa, Chief Registrar- Member 9. Mr. Francis Gimara, President Uganda Law Society-Member 10. Mr. Andrew Khaukha, Technical Advisor Judiciary -Member/ Resource Person 11. Mr. Sam Wairagala-Secretary to the Committee

for effective case management. It also sought to find out the pending cases according to how long they spent in the system, case category among other objectives. Justice Dr. Henry Peter Adonyo, who headed a 12-member committee in carrying out the census says each file has different reasons for the delay but added that some were mismanaged while others had long injunctions imposed against them. The report shows that Central region has the highest number of pending cases standing at 56,058, representing 48.8 per cent; Western region has 21,860 pending cases representing 19 per cent and Eastern region comes in at third position with 19,340 pending cases representing 16.8 per cent. Northern region has the least pending cases standing at 17,551 (15 per cent). Speaking at the launch of the report, Chief Justice Bart M. Katureebe said the report is timely given the wealth and value of the information that is contained therein.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

He said, “The report has also pinpointed where the case backlog is and the possible reasons for delay of cases. The Report has also indicated several areas for improvement and given us hope that with correct interventions, case backlog can be tackled and eliminated in the medium term.” The Chief Justice pointed out that no country can meaningfully invest and reform the administration of justice without accurate data. The information in the report is going to be used to inform sector-wide reforms and interventions such as the Judiciary Transformation Plan and the fourth strategic investment plan of the Judiciary to address systemic challenges constraining the efficient and effective administration of justice in Uganda. The Chief Justice constituted an 11 member Judiciary Case Backlog Reduction Committee headed by Court of Appeal Justice Richard Buteera to develop a sustainable case backlog eradication plan.

Innovations

Backlog Reduction recommendations expected in March On October 24th, 2016, the Hon. Chief Justice Bart Magunda Katureebe set up an 11 member case backlog reduction committee headed by Court of Appeal Justice Richard Buteera. The Committee is responsible for advising the Hon. the Chief Justice on interventions for the sustainable eradication of the case backlog in the Courts of Judicature of Uganda. The objective of the Case Backlog reduction committee is to establish the causes and extent of case backlog, review current efforts and make recommendations to address the existing backlog.

hroughout November 2016, the Case Backlog Committee has held a series of consultative meetings with various actors in the criminal justice system. In particular, meetings have been held with: the DPP and his staff; the Attorney-General and staff from the Ministry of Justice; a selection of Chief Magistrates; a selection of High Court Judges; a selection of judges of the Court of Appeal; a selection of Supreme Court judges, the police, prisons and members of civil society and NGOs working in the field of justice and development partners. At each meeting, the consultees provided their thoughts on the causes of the case backlog, and following a round-table discussion between the members of the Committee and the consultees, some suggestions for tackling the case backlog were put forward. Some consultees have been asked to provide further information in written submissions, for consideration by the Committee.

The Committee presented its initial Status Report to the Chief Justice on December 19th, 2016, and asked for more time to prepare its final report and recommendations. The Chief Justice gave them more

The Case Backlog Committee meeting with the Directorate of Public Prosecution.

time up to March 14th, 2017, when the Committee is expected to present its findings and recommendations.

Background In December 2015, the Judiciary under-

Terms of Reference • Identify the extent of the case backlog; • Identify and document the causes of the backlog; • Review current efforts to reduce the case backlog; and • Make recommendations to address the existing backlog and stop the growth of a new backlog.

took the first ever National Case Census to establish the number of pending and backlogged cases before the courts. The Census established that there are 114,809 cases pending. Out of these, 28,864 are classed as “backlog” (pending for more than two years), and of those 968 had been pending for more than 10 years. It was assessed that, if no measures are taken to tackle the case backlog, it will expand at a rate of 10 per cent per year. Prison congestion will rise to a more than 300 per cent occupancy rate, with more than 50,000 prisoners. The Findings of the census were handed over to the Hon. the Chief Justice on the October 24th, 2016, against this background he constituted a case backlog committee to study the proposals and make recommendations on the eradication of case backlog.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Milestone

First Gender Bench Book launched The Justice law and order sector, (JLOS) on October 7th, 2016 launched the Gender Bench Book to Women’s access to Justice aimed at ending gender bias.

he Gender Bench Book was largely bankrolled by the United Nations and the Swedish government. It is a guide to judges and magistrates on gender equality issues usually ignored in their judgments. According to High Court Judge David Batema, the book’s mastermind, the need for the book arose after a 2011 study conducted by the JLOS found, among other things, the limited capacity by the judiciary to deliver gender-sensitive justice to women specifically. Chief Justice Bart Katureebe said the book wasn’t new to him since judges and other key stakeholders provided some technical input. Without a doubt, Justice Katureebe acknowledged, women often find it more difficult than men to access justice.

The authors urge the government to not only enact the shelved Marriage and Divorce Bill but also the Sexual Offences Bill to enhance access to justice by victims. “Government should put in place measures to enhance the enforcement of the Domestic Violence Act, the Prevention of Trafficking in Persons Act, and the Female Genital Mutilation Act, including cross-border intergovernmental co-operation,” the book says. Justice Batema challenged fellow judges to stop being “conservative” in their judgments.

tions of discrimination or violence, as they often are, their only recourse are law and justice agencies,” Justice Katureebe said. “The biggest disappointment, therefore, is if the justice agencies are inaccessible or unresponsive to their plight. This is what breeds impunity and systematic abuse of the rights of the vulnerable woman. Unfettered access to justice for women is, therefore, a cardinal human rights issue.” The book also urges either the Chief Justice or the principal judge to issue a practice direction to guide judicial officers on property sharing at the dissolution of marriage.

“When women are faced with situa-

“This has been attributed to discriminatory laws, norms and practices within the various societies in which we live coupled with lack of awareness on the part of the various actors within the justice sector, the women themselves and the general public,” he said. Justice Katureebe confirmed that the judiciary is going to hold what he called ‘gender bench briefs’. The briefs, according to the Chief Justice, are intended to avail judges with best international practices to be used as persuasive authorities by judges in determining cases in which women’s rights are involved.

Hon. Justice Bart M. Katureebe launching Justice Batema-authored Gender Bench Book.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Innovations

Courts get Audio-Video technology for vulnerable witnesses The Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Bart M. Katureebe on August 17th, 2016 launched yet a new Judiciary innovation that will enable courts to take evidence by Audio-Visual Link.

The Hon. Chief Justice Bart Katureebe speaking at the launch of Audio Visual link technology at the High Court in Kampala

aced with delays and increasing costs associated with hearing cases, the new technology is intended to ease the taking of testimony by the courts from vulnerable witnesses like children, the elderly and whistle-blowers, who would testify from afar. With support from UNICEF, the Judiciary has installed Closed Circuit Cameras that are connected to TV monitors in the High Courts of Kampala, Mbale and Fort Portal. Similar facilities will soon be installed in the High Court Circuits of Gulu, Mbarara, Arua and Masindi. “Audio-Visual link refers to giving or receiv-

ing of evidence through electronic means without a person physically appearing in court,” explained Judiciary’s Technical Advisor, Mr. Andrew Khaukha, who is also the project coordinator. According to the Judicature Audio-Visual Rules No. 26 of 2016, a person can give evidence using this technology under the following circumstances; Where proceedings relate to sexual or violent offences • For security reasons • For safety of a witness • When a witness lives outside Uganda • Where it is inconvenient for the party to

give evidence in open court • For economic considerations • Due to health reasons • For any other reason the court deems necessary and appropriate that a witness gives evidence through visual-audio link. The innovation is one of the promises made by the Chief Justice during last year’s Opening of the New Law Year, where he pledged to support implementation of the robust Information Communication Technology (ICT) systems to expedite court processes and ease court public access to the court. Continues to page 21

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Innovations

Magistrates, registrars inducted on new technology in court The Judiciary trained more than 100 judicial officers at the rank of Grade One Magistrates and Registrars on how to effectively use the audio-visual link technology of taking evidence from children who are victims of sexual abuse and other forms of abuse without coming into contact with their alleged tormentors.

uring the same demonstration of how to use the audio-visual link technology, the magistrates were showed various clips of senior judicial officers taking evidence from witnesses who were residing outside the country by way of video conference. While briefing the magistrates ahead of the demonstration, the then head of High Court, Criminal Division Justice Wilson Masalu Musene encouraged the magistrates to embrace this technology of taking evidence saying the times are changing. “I am aware that this technology has not yet been rolled out up country where most of you are based but the Judiciary can arrange and have you come to Kampala where this equipment is situated and hear the case and then go back...” Justice Musene urged the magistrates who have been

From page 20

Hon. Justice said children who are victims of sexual gender based violence shall appear in court by audio-video link to save them from secondary victimization, which they suffer when they physically appear in court to testify in full view of their alleged molesters. The system was successfully pre-tested in April this year at an event that was presided over by the Principal Judge, Hon. Jus-

undergoing various induction courses at the Judicial Studies Institute, a training arm of the Judiciary for the past one week. While speaking to Registrars, Justice Musene gave examples of the categories of cases that may need the use of the audio-visual link technology. He named some of these categories as those that are sexual, security concerns, for health reasons as the witness is incapacitated and cannot move to the court and those witnesses that are far from the court. The Judiciary in conjunction with UNICEF has so far launched the use of the audio-visual link technology in three courts including, Kampala, Mbale and Fort Portal high courts. Under the audio-visual link technology arrangement, children who are

tice Dr. Yorokamu Bamwine.

The legal framework Uganda is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which was ratified in 1989. The framers of the 1995 Constitution bearing in mind that Uganda was signatory to the Convention made provisions in the Constitution relating to promotion of

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

victims of sexual violence and other forms of violence, sit in a separate and friendly room far from the traditional court room where their suspected tormentors are and can in turn, freely testify against them by the help of installed cameras and other gadgets in the court room. This new development is aimed at shielding children who are victims of sexual violence and other forms of violence from secondary victimization by not mixing them with their alleged tormentors in the same court room. During the induction session, Chief Registrar of Courts of Judicature, Mr. Paul Gadenya, cautioned magistrates from posting on their various social media platforms shaming content, reasoning that the society holds them in high esteem so they should not act in a way that brings the Judiciary into disrepute.

the rights of children. The 1995 Constitution was internationalized by the Children Act Cap 59 which emphasizes upholding the best welfare principle which is to the effect that in whatever you do while handling cases of children it is important to adhere to the interests of the child. In that respect, the atmosphere of court is important. The European Union and United Nations both have guidelines on child friendly procedures.

The Judicature (Visual-Audio Link) Rules, 2016 (Under Section 41 (1) and (2) (y) of the Judicature Act, Cap. 13) PART I – PRELIMINARY

1. Title. These Rules may be cited as the Judicature (Visual - Audio Link) Rules, 2016. 2. Application. These Rules, apply to all the courts of judicature, in both civil and criminal matters. 3. Interpretation. In these Rules, unless the context otherwise requires• “Court” means a court of Judicature established by or under the authority of the Constitution; • “Court location” means the location where the presiding judicial officer sits; • “Document conferencing” means simultaneous access to a document by participants in visual-audio link proceedings by projecting the document on a screen with a view to considering it in evidence; • “Location” means the location of the visual-audio link conferencing facilities; • “Presiding judicial officer” means the judicial officer presiding over a case which is the subject of the proceedings; • “Visual-audio link” refers to the fa-

cility enabling the giving or receiving of evidence through electronic means without a person physically appearing in court. 4. Objectives. The objectives of these Rules area. To provide for the taking of evidence in court by visual-audio link; b. To make it easier for witnesses to give evidence without physically appearing in court; c. To enable parties, advocates and accused persons to address court without physically appearing in court; d. To facilitate speedy trials; e. To provide for relief from the anxiety of giving evidence in open court; f. To reduce the cost of litigation; and g. To promote witness protection.

PART II – VISUAL-AUDIO LINK

5. Circumstances for visual-audio link evidence. A court may hear a case by visual-audio link in the following circumstancesa. Where a witness lives outside Uganda; b. Where proceedings relate to sexual or violent offences; c. For security reasons; d. For the safety of witnesses; e. For infirmity or health reasons; or f. For any other reason that the Court deems necessary and appropriate for a witness to give evidence through the visual-audio link.

6. Approval of court for use of visualaudio link. 1. Where a party seeks to proceed by visual-audio link, he or she shall apply to court, for approval of the venue, time and person or institution to facilitate or assist in the proceedings away from the Court in accordance with these Rules. 2. The court may approve any of the institutions specified in the First Schedule as a location for visual audio link proceedings. 7. Suitability of visual-audio conference facilities. 1. Where, at any stage of the proceedings, a court finds that a facility approved under rule 6 does not meet the requisite standards, the court may discontinue proceedings and direct the facility approved, to make the necessary improvements. 2. Where the facility fails to make the necessary improvements under subrule (1), the presiding judicial officer shall make orders for an alternative method of hearing the case. 8. Time zones. Subject to section 19 (1) of the Judicature Act, where the location is outside Uganda, the court shall take into account the different time zones and hold the proceedings at a time convenient to court and the parties. 9. Commencement of proceedings. 1. A party to the proceedings may, subject to rule 5, apply to use the visual-audio link

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

in the form set out in the First Schedule. 2. Upon receipt of the application, the court shall, before the commencement of the hearing, appoint a person to coordinate the proceedings at the location, and confirm the availability and suitability of the visual-audio link facility and report back to the court and applicant on whether the case can proceed in the facility. 3. Where the court grants the application, it shall determine the course of the proceedings in respect ofa. The party that shall bear the applicable costs; b. The positioning of the interpreters; c. The conduct of oath; and d. Other details necessary for the proper conduct of the proceedings. (4) The court may give directions in respect ofa. The witness to give evidence by visual audio link; b. Whether the evidence in chief of the witness at any subsequent visualaudio link shall be confined to the witness statement; c. The date and time of the hearing; and d. Any other matter that the court may deem necessary. 10. Objection to proceedings. 1. Where any party objects to visual-audio link proceedings, he or she shall, within five days after receipt of notice of the application for visual-audio proceedings, file an objection by letter stating the reasons for the objection and shall serve a copy on the opposite party. 2. The opposite party served with the objection shall, within five days of receipt of the objection, file a reply. 3. Upon the filing of the reply in sub rule

(2), the court shall give its decision on the matter without undue delay. 11. Documentary evidence. 1. Where documents are to be relied upon in the visual-audio proceedings, the court shall hold document conferencing. 2. Where a document is to be adduced by either party, the party adducing the document shall serve the other party and the court before the proceedings. 3. Where a document is adduced in the course of the proceedings, a document camera scan, email, or fax may be used by the court to transmit the document between the court location and the facility. 4. Subject to sub rules (1) and (2), during document conferencing the parties may edit or revise the document using keyboard commands, a mouse, a light pen, or any other means as court may approve. 12. Hearing. Subject to rule 6, a judicial officer shall require that all parties taking part in the proceedings are introduced to one another and shall determinea. The procedure and mode of conducting proceedings; b. The person who shall control the cameras, transmission and the person at the court location; and c. The seating arrangement of both parties. 12. Examination of witnesses. 1. The order of examination of witnesses shall be in accordance with the Evidence Act.

witness must be able to see the person asking the question and any other person making statements in regard to the evidence of the witness, and the court should be able to hear and observe the demeanour of the witness. 13. Fees. A party applying to adduce evidence by use of visual-audio link facility shalla. Book the approved facility and provide evidence of the booking in the form set out in the Second Schedule; and b. Provide an undertaking that he or she will meet the costs of the communication link in the form set out in the Third Schedule and where the witness is a state witness, the costs of the visual audio facility shall be paid by the State. 14. Evidence of a child. 1. The court shall adopt child friendly procedures when obtaining evidence from a child and may decide that the examination be done through an intermediary. 2. Subject to sub rule (1), the court may direct that examination of a child witness be done in a manner that is appropriate for the age and mental ability of the child. 15. Evidence of persons with disability. Where evidence is obtained from a person with a disability, the court shall take into account the nature of the disability and make appropriate Hon. Bart M. Katureebe CHIEF JUSTICE

2. During examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination, a

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Election petition

A scene from the March 31st, 2016 Amama Mbabazi Presidential Election Petition judgement at the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court recommends 10 reforms in Presidential Polls

The Supreme Court made ten recommendations aimed at creating reforms to have free and fair presidential elections in the subsequent election years.

n order to see that these recommendations are this time round put into action unlike in the previous two presidential elections, the same court directed the Attorney General (AG), who is the chief government legal advisor to follow up these recommendations and report back to court within two years on the progress.

have remained largely unimplemented. It may well be that no authority was identified to follow up. We have further noted that the Attorney General may object to withdrawal of proceedings. Therefore the Attorney General is the authority that must be served with the recommendations of this Court for necessary follow up,” the justices of the court ordered the AG.

The move by the nine justices of the court led by Chief Justice Bart Katureebe to hard press the government on these electoral reforms this time, followed the push by a group of Makerere lecturers for the same recommendations arguing that the previous ones had been brushed aside.

This full and reasoned judgment of the court was read out but justice Jotham Tumwesigye on behalf of Chief Justice Bart Katureebe who was out of the country.

The lecturers had joined Mr. Amama Mbabazi’s presidential petition in which he was challenging President Museveni’s February 18th victory with the court giving its full and reasoned judgment on Friday. “We note that most of the recommendations for reform made by this Court in the previous presidential election petitions,

court to adequately prepare and present their case. “The 10 day period within which to file a presidential election petition and to gather evidence and the 30 days within which the Court must analyze the evidence and make a decision as provided under Article 104 (2) and (3) of the Constitution and section 59 (2) and (3) of the Presidential Elections Act (PEA) is inadequate,” observed the justices.

Core to these recommendations was that the ten-day period within which to file a presidential election petition and also gather evidence to support it and the 30days period within which the Supreme Court is to determine the same petition, is unrealistic.

“We recommend that the period be reviewed and necessary amendments be made to the law to increase it to at least 60 days to give the parties and the Court sufficient time to prepare, present, hear and determine the petition, while at the same time being mindful of the time within which the new President must be sworn in,” they recommended.

To that effect, the justices recommended that the law should be amended to extend the filing and determination period to 60 days to enable the concerned parties and

The new recommendations of the court if put into practice, will also see a law enacted to bar the involvement of public servants from meddling in elections.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Election petition

In the March presidential election filed by Mr. Mbabazi, one of the grounds that he raised before court to annul President Museveni’s victory was that public officers like the Executive Director of KCCA, Ms Jenifer Musisi and the Ms Allen Kagina, the UNRA boss, had campaigned for President Museveni. “The law should make it explicit that public servants are prohibited from involvement in political campaigns,” ruled the justices. The highest court also recommended that there should be no more fundraising or giving out of donations by presidential candidates including the president during the presidential campaigns. In the recent past presidential election petition, Mr. Mbabazi had raised the bribery allegation against President Museveni when he alleged that the incumbent had bribed the electorate of West Nile with hand hoes in exchange of voting him and not his competitors. But the court didn’t hold President Museveni culpable of these bribery allegation on ground that evidence was laid before the court to show that the dishing out of the hand hoes to the electorate of West Nile was a government program that had started way long before the campaigns and that it was just an ongoing “Section 64 of the PEA deals with bribery. We note that Section 64 (7) forbids candidates or their agents from carrying out fundraising or giving donations during the period of campaigns. Under Section 64 (8), it is an offence to violate section 64 (7). However, we note that under Section 64 (9) a candidate may solicit for funds to organize for elections during the campaign period. Furthermore, a President may in the ordinary course of his/her duties give donations even during the campaign period,” observed the justices

Adding: “this section in the law should be amended to prohibit the giving of donations by all candidates including a President who is also a candidate, in order to create a level playing field for all.” The justices further in their recommendations to government, observed that while technology in election process should be encouraged like how the EC introduced the use of the Biometric Voter Machines in the February 18th general elections, the justices said the same should be backed by law. On the issue of state media outlets not giving equal air time to the opposition candidates to market themselves to the electorate during the campaigns, the justices were of the view that a law should be amended and punish those media managers and houses who refuse to grant equal air time to all presidential candidates. In the previous presidential election petition, Mr. Mbabazi accused Uganda Broadcasting Corporation (UBC) of having only aired out President Museveni’s campaign messages and also given him air time to carry out his campaigns and yet other candidates were denied the same opportunity. The difference in this recommendation is that it’s the errant state owned media managers who will be punished. “Both the Constitution in Article 67 (3) and the PEA in section 24 (1), provide that all presidential candidates shall be given equal time and space on State owned media to present their programs to the people. We found that UBC had failed in this duty. We recommend that the electoral law should be amended to provide for sanctions against any State organ or officer who violates this Constitutional duty,” the justices recommended.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

The other sticky issue that the court addressed itself upon was the amendments that were made just a few weeks to the start of the presidential campaigns. The justices recommended that incase there is need to amend electoral laws, the same should be done two years prior to the campaigns. During the cross examination of the EC boss Eng. Badru Kiggundu in the Supreme Court, he confessed to have extended the period for nomination of presidential candidates because of the late amendment in the electoral laws that somehow disrupted their planning and flow. The amendments saw the presidential candidates who were previously given money and cars to help them in campaigns, the same logistics were withdrawn. The presidential nomination fee was also increased from Shs. 8m to Shs. 20m. We observed that the ECA and the PEA were amended as late as November, 2015. Indeed the Chairman of the Commission gave the late amendment of the law as the reason for extending the nomination date. We recommend that any election related law reform be undertaken within two years of the establishment of the new Parliament in order to avoid last minute hastily enacted legislation on elections. The justices also recommended that the law should be amended to make it permissible for the Attorney General to be one of the respondents in the presidential election on grounds that there certain issues that need the response of the AG. As it is now, the electoral laws don’t provide for the inclusion of the AG as one of the respondents in the election petitions. The former premier had in his poll petition, included the AG as one of the respondents, the first of its own kind in the history of the presidential election petitions.

Milestone

Supreme Court’s Justice Tibatemwa shines at the Commonwealth During the 11th Commonwealth Women’s Affairs Ministerial Meeting in Apia, Samoa, Uganda’s lone star, Supreme Court Justice Lillian Tibatemwa-Ekirikubinza, shone brightly. Justice Tibatemwa was the only judicial officer at the event where she presented a paper on judicial intervention to address violence against women and girls. The engagement was welcomed in promoting the direct involvement of judicial officers in programmes.

ommonwealth Women’s Affairs Ministerial Meeting (WAMM) was held under the theme ‘Gender equality through sustainable development in an inclusive commonwealth’. Speaking on the eve of the meeting, the Secretary-General Patricia Scotland said, “We are bringing together women leaders and human rights campaigners from across the Commonwealth to celebrate women’s achievements and, ultimately, seek solutions to overcome the obstacles that squander women’s potential. “By better empowering women, the world can benefit from their talents, drive and passions that go so underutilised. Our Commonwealth charter and many of the Sustainable Development Goals recognise women as dynamic forces for achieving lasting change and implementing sustainable solutions. Through equality, we can all work together to achieve our shared goals.” Justice Tibatemwa delivering her presentation at the Commonwealth meeting.

WAMM has been held triennially since 1985 and provides the opportunity for ministers, senior officials, civil society, private sector and partner agencies to discuss critical issues in advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment. It also contributes to the setting of Commonwealth priorities and the glob-

al agenda for sustainable and inclusive development. Some of the key recommendations made at the conference include:

Develop training programmes improving gender awareness for people in roles of public responsibility, such as doctors, teachers and the police

Protect and strengthen women’s legal rights – and ensure these are fairly upheld in the judicial system and judgement duly enforced

Advocate for a minimum of 30 per cent representation of women in senior positions in the public and private sector.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Milestone

Judiciary Scoops two JLOS Awards The Judiciary scored yet another landmark in the dispensation of Justice after scooping two awards at the 21st Annual Justice Law and Order Sector (JLOS) Review. Judiciary was awarded with the JLOS Public Affairs and Media Relations Awards 2016 as well as the JLOS Innovations Award at Commonwealth Resort Munyonyo.

he Judiciary was credited for carrying out extensive public sensitization campaigns across the country through bazaars, radio talk shows and court open days on issues of plea-bargaining, Small claims procedures and other access to justice issues last financial year. Efforts of the Judiciary to reach out to the public are yielding fruits positively changing negative perceptions about the Judiciary in the public domain, the JLOS secretariat said. Judiciary was also applauded for being at the forefront of justice innovations over the years. The Judiciary recently launched the Audio-Visual Link project that makes it possible for courts to receive evidence by audio video link from witnesses who cannot appear in court due to infancy, old age, distance and costs, the JLOS secretariat observed.

Mr. Solomon Muyita, Judiciary’s Senior Communications Officer (L) and Registrar/ PRO Eliasa Kisawuzi (R) after receiving the JLOS Public Affairs Award.

This technology innovation is an effective and cost effective enabler of access to justice for the vulnerable a signature outcome of the JLOS Third Strategic Investment Plan. The Chief Justice in his keynote address pledged to promote the rule of law and enhance the public trust and confidence.

Court of Appeal’s Justice Richard Buteera receives Judiciary’s Innovation Award from the Hon. Chief Justice.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

Experience

11-year-old Tyra Kabugo’s moment as Chief Justice On the afternoon of October 14th, 2016, about 15 pupils of Kampala Parents School were dressed in Judges gowns and wigs, others were dressed like lawyers. The excited children were for the first time going to meet the head of the Judiciary, the third arm of government, the Hon. Chief Justice, Hon. Justice Bart Katureebe at his chambers at the Supreme Court. The children were eager to meet the Chief Justice whom they had just read about and watched on television.

on. Justice Katureebe was delighted to see the children dressed like Judges and lawyers before welcoming them to his chambers. “You children are lucky that you have come to the Supreme Court, for us during our days, we could not even get close to the Chief Magistrates Court, a jolly Hon. Justice Katureebe said. During his jovial interaction with the children, he showed them various pictures that he took with high profile world leaders that are hang on the wall. He pointed to the first picture that hang in the far corner of his chambers as a picture taken of him taking oath upon his first appointed as a minister. The other pictures were those of Pope John II, Sadam Hussein whom he said he met in Baghdad when he was a minister, former US president Bill Clinton and those of President Museveni. The Chief Justice had a question and answer session where the children asked him a series of questions including how he feels after sentencing someone to prison and later discovers that indeed the person was innocent. Hon. Justice Katureebe replied that it is a regrettable scenario to happen. He said to avoid such occurrences; Judges must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the person they are sending to jail committed the offence. After the

Tyra Kabugo (seated) led a team of Kampala Parent School pupils to roleplay the Chief Justice Bart Katureebe in October.

question and answer session, the children merrily took pictures with the Chief Justice. To crown the afternoon, the pupils had “a moot court about a seven-year old girl in Mityana district that was defiled by her uncle. The Chief Justice was one of those who watched the moot court as the children meticulously acted out as Judges, Defence Lawyers and Prosecutors. Eleven-year-old Tyra Kabugo, took over as the Chief Justice for a few hours and presided over a mock defilement case at the Supreme court. Chief Justice B. Katureebe remarked, “It is as if they have been doing this all their life! Tomorrow when this comes out in the news, others will aspired to join this cause. Then when real cases of defilement come to us, it will ring bells.”

Such demonstrations of leadership have truly broken stereotypes of what is possible for girls. It has opened doors for dialogue and discussion amongst key stakeholders and in almost all cases, commitments towards new resolutions have been announced. “We want to make key reforms to our juvenile justice system. Such as having a social worker present when children make statements in court, having audio/visual devices so they have separate rooms when making these statements. Even painting the walls with fun colours and designs. These go a long way in supporting children to become less frightened and open up,” the Chief Justice said. This was part of the activities to mark the International Day of the Girl Child.

THE JUDICIARY INSIDER | August 2016 - January 2017

THROUGH THE LENS

The Chief Justice (centre front row) joined by other stakeholders at the launch of the Gender Benchbook in Kampala.

Mr. Herman von Hebel, the Registrar International Crimes Court paid a courtesy call on the International Crimes Division of the High Court on December 8th, 2016.

Some of the JLOS stakeholders outside Fort Portal High Court after a workshop on Audio Visual Technology.

Justice Henrieta Wolayo handing over the Soroti High Court to Justice David Batema

Mr. Tadeo Asiimwe (2nd L), Ag. Inspector of Courts, and members of his team during an inspection exercise at Kitgum Chief Magistrates Court.