BIG INTERVIEW: Karuhanga Pledges to Raise Reggae in JSC
We must make sure that we protect the independence of the courts and, at the same time, not use that independence to avoid accountability - Elison Karuhanga
Advocate Elison Karuhanga, a candidate for the Uganda Law Society's nomination to the Judicial Service Commission, is proposing that the Judiciary should start appointing qualified advocates as acting judges on a contractual basis to address the growing backlog of cases in the justice system.
Highlighting the urgent need for innovative solutions, Mr Karuhanga told the Nile Post that during his nationwide campaign to canvass for votes, he witnessed alarming disparities, with magistrates in some districts burdened with over 1,000 cases each, leading to significant delays in the administration of justice.
Last year, the High Court in Kampala blocked the Uganda Law Society Extra-Ordinary Annual General Meeting and subsequent elections slated for December 17, 2024.
The order given by the Civil Division Judge Musa Ssekaana arose from an application filed by one of the aggrieved members of the Uganda Law Society (ULS), Hashim Mugisha, challenging the legality of the meeting and the manner in which the posts that were to be filled fell vacant.
Uganda Law Society members are waiting for the Court to pronounce itself on the matter before elections can be held. But the campaigns for the positions are ongoing.
Excerpts;
Briefly tell us who is Elison Karuhanga?
I am Elison Karuhanga, a partner with a law firm called Kampala Associated Advocates, and a candidate for the Uganda Law Society nominee to the Judicial Service Commission.
Make us understand the roles of the Judicial Service Commission
It is a body that recruits judicial officers, magistrates, and advises the President on the appointment of judges of the High Court, Justices of the Court of Appeal, and Justices of the Supreme Court.
It consists of a Chairperson, a Deputy Chairperson, and seven members, two of whom must be nominated by the Uganda Law Society. They are all appointed by the President after he receives nominations from the constituencies, including the Public Service Commission, Judiciary, two members of the public, and the Uganda Law Society.
The Uganda Law Society has this year taken a historic decision rooted in the law to elect its representatives to the Judicial Service Commission, and I am currently canvassing for votes.
The Judicial Service Commission is an important organisation because it is about the administration of justice in this country. Justice is a fine and important thing that is needed in Uganda. The Judicial Service Commission not only staffs the Judiciary but also participates in the disciplining of judicial officers.
Why do you think you are fit to be a member of the Judicial Service Commission?
I am offering myself because I believe that we need to have a serious debate and conversation among practitioners of the law about how we can make our justice system more responsive. The system was made for the people and not the people for the justice system. It must be fairer; it must be more efficient.
In my tours around the country, we have seen that there are districts where new judicial officers are appointed and they are assigned to handle 1,000 cases or 1,500 cases. In one district, two judges are sitting among themselves to judge 4,000 disputes. Judges are sitting down to judge 10 cases a day. The magistrates are also having their own challenges.
The upper bench has serious quorum issues, so much so that the Supreme Court of Uganda has not issued a judgment in a constitutional appeal in the last four years. Are we going to continue having the same discussion every year of increasing the budget and increasing judicial officers, and will that necessarily solve the challenges we are having?
Of course, there are many improvements that have happened over the last few years. We have seen more courts, more magistrates being appointed, and more judges being appointed.
What we are proposing, among other things, is that we need to see appointments that are more creative in how to solve the challenges that we have. The law in Uganda allows for this, so we are not even proposing any change of law. If we use the law as it is, what can we do with the system as it stands to make it start working for the people it needs to be working for?
The first proposal, which we have picked out in our country tours, is the use of advocates as clearing and forwarding agents of the court.
At the moment, instead of appointing someone a full-time judge and giving them a judicial office, a car, a bodyguard, a clerk, a research assistant, and an office as a judicial officer, along with the attendant things that come with it, we are proposing that we should have more judges appointed. But on top of that, we should have a system where advocates who qualify can take on a temporary office for a specific purpose.
For example, there could be an exercise to reduce backlog. Instead of getting judges to stop what they are doing and focus on backlog, we can get advocates to come for the temporary purpose of resolving that particular backlog. They finish that exercise and go back to their chambers.
In this way, advocates are important players and important facilitators in the administration of justice. It is more cost-effective.
The other things we are looking at are transparency in judicial appointments. Apart from open hearings, one of the big things required, especially for lawyers who apply to be judicial officers, is to see better feedback given to applicants.
Another fundamental thing is to start thinking about the challenges differently. For example, the deployment of technology. We have sessions of the appeal courts and many upcountry courts. Instead of having the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal traveling around the country or lawyers traveling to Kampala to argue cases, why can't we simply deploy technology like Zoom and make sure hearings can be conducted remotely?
During the COVID-19 lockdown, we used to have Zoom cases. Why can't we continue with the technology?
The fourth thing we are looking at is that the Judicial Service Commission must not only be involved in investigating corruption but also other forms of indiscipline. The Judicial Service Commission is not an extension of the office of the Inspectorate of Government; it is not an extension of the Police. It must be more than that. It must be an extension of the voice of the people of this country who are seeking justice.
The current statistics indicate that the Judicial Service Commission resolves 20% of the disputes taken to it. That means out of every 10 complaints registered against judicial officers, only two are resolved. That is why I am offering myself.
You're running a campaign dubbed "Nobody Can Stop Reggae." What does that mean?
In 2016, I was part of a group of lawyers who passed regulations saying that we must vote for these positions. This was in response to a suit filed by Mr Isaac Ssemakadde, the president of the Law Society. We all agreed as a law society that we must elect representatives for these positions.
However, from 2016 to date, we haven't had an election for this position. The ULS council has been nominating members on behalf of the ULS. A member called Steven Kalali filed a suit challenging that exercise by the Law Society, saying we must have elections. Consequently, the High Court permanently stopped the Uganda Law Society Council from appointing.
However, the ULS appealed. When the new leadership of ULS came in, the appeal was withdrawn, and the ULS Council can no longer appoint. However, because of other challenges, someone slapped an injunction on the election.
What we are saying is that there can be no permanent injunction on democracy. There can be no stopping people from voting and choosing their leaders. There can be no stopping discussions about how to improve the administration of justice. For us, the administration of justice must beat like the drums of reggae.
That's our argument everywhere we go: Nobody can stop reggae.
You have travelled to different parts of the country. How have you found the legal fraternity wherever you have been?
What I can say is that we have a fantastic legal profession in this country. What I have traveled and seen is the commitment of lawyers to the administration of justice. I have also seen that there are lawyers practicing law in virtually every part of this country that we have been to.
We have been everywhere, and I can tell you that we have seen lawyers, and they are doing credible things wherever they are. We have learned many lessons, ranging from judicial accountability to judicial independence.
We must make sure that we protect the independence of the courts and, at the same time, not use that independence to avoid accountability. I have seen that lawyers are active participants and are willing to contribute to improving justice. We just need to be more organised and have our voices heard more clearly.
I am very blessed and humbled to travel around the country and engage with colleagues up and around the country.
This could be the first election of Uganda Law Society nominees on the Judicial Service Commission. Explain to the layman what it implies for the functions of the Judicial Service Commission.
Since 1995, our colleagues have been appointed to the Judicial Service Commission, and many of them have served with distinction at the Uganda Law Society. However, that is a constitutional office, and the Constitution provides that the President shall appoint two lawyers of more than 15 years standing, nominated by the Uganda Law Society.
The debate has always been: Who is the Uganda Law Society? Is it all the members, or is it the Council? We resolved that debate with election regulations in 2016, with the Kalali case in 2024, and the decision of the current Uganda Law Society Council.
To answer you, the election of members enhances the independence of the Judicial Service Commission. In my view, a person nominated by the Uganda Law Society, apart from having the requisite experience, must go and make a case to the members of the Law Society about the kind of judicial system they want and the sort of discipline they want.
The beauty of democracy is that the more people engage with the process, the fairer it becomes. We all become better for it because, right now, we are in a marketplace of ideas. The best ideas are supposed to rise to the top.
Those good ideas and debates will enhance and promote the independence of the Judicial Service Commission and, by extension, the independence of the Judiciary. Not only independence but also efficiency, accountability, and the justice system we all want. That is my honest opinion.
Several reports have placed the Justice, Law, and Order Sector, where the Judiciary falls, among the most corrupt sectors. How will you end corruption in the Judiciary?
You are right; the Judicial Service Commission is the whip that should be cracked to stop and fight corruption within our justice system. The challenge we are facing right now is that the disposal rate of complaints is less than 20%. That is not sustainable. We need to have a higher and better rate of disposal.
That corruption perception must be improved by the Judicial Service Commission cracking the whip on errant or allegedly errant judicial officers. However, it is not just about the perception of the Judiciary as being corrupt. The failure to determine cases is a big challenge to the judicial officers.
Many judicial officers, against whom there are baseless complaints, have a knife hanging over their heads, waiting to cut them off. They don’t know what the next step is because complaints are not being resolved.
One of the best ways to increase the efficiency of the system is to resolve complaints that the Judicial Service Commission receives as fast as possible, to identify the challenges and bottlenecks, and ensure that there is no backlog in the Commission and the courts.
That is, I think, one practical thing we need to work on immediately. There must be zero tolerance for corruption. There is a strong belief among legal professionals that there is significant corruption even within the Judicial Service Commission, and that is something we must look into and fight against clearly. We must give confidence to legal practitioners and the public.
