Judicial reforms must include entire system

The public is receptive to Chief Justice Bart Katureebe’s call to shake up the Judiciary. But history in these matters is the best teacher.

Since 1986, only three Judges have been removed from office or forced to retire from office: Justices Absolom Oteng, Moses Kalanda and Richard Oscar Okumu-Wengi. Justice Anup Singh attained retirement age after prevailing in at least one case challenging the manner in which he was recommended for removal from office. In the lower ranks of judicial officers, cases of successful removal are fewer and far between. It took nearly a decade, for example, to get rid of a magistrate who raped a staff member from the chambers of the deputy Chief Justice! 

As the system stands today, before castigating Judges generally, we must admit that they are a reflection of society in which we live today. For 30 years - after implementing structural adjustment, the public has accepted to keep pay generally lower than a living wage. A public officer is expected to survive from the “trappings” of office rather than his pay. In the Judiciary, the court clerk who is expected in office at 8.30 am per standing orders, must make it there each morning dressed at par or presentable as are other members of court, including the Judge and Advocates. I am yet to see a single proposal arrive at the higher echelons of government that laments the laughable pay of the lower judicial officers. There is a routine speech given every year at the opening of the Law Year lamenting lower pay. The authors of this speech pray hard that they are considered for promotion but have never evaluated their success in pushing for better pay for the Magistrates’ Courts whose subject matter jurisdiction covers 70 per cent of all judicial disputes.

Removing Judges, at least as for now, requires constitutional amendments to streamline the process. The Judicial Service Commission is riddled with inherent conflicts of interest. It is very difficult for a body that makes appointments to remove them, especially if one takes into account that certain members are “entrenched” members. They are sitting Judges. In the same vein, it is not wise for the Chief Justice to get involved in personnel and discipline decisions. Read more