Uganda Forum Against Corrupt Entities

Fight corruption in your community

What is the Solution to Case Backlog in the Judiciary of Uganda? Let Magistrates Courts handle capital cases and other cases heard by the High Court

by · Published · Updated

As at the close of September 2024, the Judiciary of Uganda had 163,634 pending filed in its Court and out of these 40,965 cases are BACKLOG cases. This caseload is against a workforce of 655 Judicial Officers.

Why does the Judiciary of Uganda have backlog?

Is the Judiciary of Uganda truly unable to adjudicate and dispose of a caseload of 163,634 or is there a systemic problem that we are not addressing? When you divide 163,634 cases between 655 Judicial Officers you get a caseload of 251 cases per Judicial Officer. Is a caseload of 251 cases per Judicial Officer high enough to justify all this moaning and noise over high case load and case backlog. Assuming that a Judicial Officer can conclude 50 cases per month, it means that 655 Judicial Officers should be able to dispose of 393,000 per year. Even if the Judiciary were able to register 160,000 per year and have 163,634 pending cases, 655 Judicial Officers disposing of 50 cases per month would be able to dispose of all cases pending before the Judiciary. So why are Judicial Officers disposing of less than 50 cases per month? Who are the Judicial Officers that are not working? Where are these Judicial Officers deployed? Why are these Judicial Officers not working? What is Judiciary doing about its officers that are not working?. Why are these Judicial Officers not working?. What can be done to make Judicial Officers work optimumally?

So we have established that the caseload is not overwhelmingly high. With 655 Judicial Officers the Judiciary can dispose of 393,000 cases per year. So what led to a BACKLOG of 40,965 cases?

We suspect that Judiciary has challenges in motivating or supervising its staff to perform at their highest possible levels thus leading to low case disposable rates and high backlog. We also suspect that Judiciary has a problem with its deployments such that many Judicial Officers are deployed in none adjudication roles or deployed in areas without sufficient disputes thus rendering them idle and unproductive. These institutional challenges could explain why Judiciary is unable to adjudicate the disputes that it receives. Maybe before we start complaining and claiming that adjudication has failed we should address the structural and institutional issues that are preventing Judicial Officers from working. Have you addressed low and discriminatory pay that affects the Magistrates? Have you addressed oppressive and discriminatory promotions and deployments that affect Magistrates? Have you put in place sufficient measures to ensure oversight and prevent corrupt practices in the Judiciary? Is jurisdiction tailored to the skills and experience of your staff? Why do you have skilled and experienced staff adjudicating peanuts and chicken thieves? How hard is it to have a system in place whereby sufficiently skilled and experienced Judicial Officers can adjudicate disputes of any value or seriousness regardless of rank?

In terms of backlog, the Magistrates Courts had the lowest number of backlog cases of 2,744, Chief Magistrates Court had backlog of 9,374 cases and High Courts had backlog of 14,693 cases. These statistics confirm that Magistrate have the lowest number of backlog cases and per the Judiciary personnel records are the highest number of Judicial Officers at 400. If each Magistrate is able to dispose of 50 cases per month and 600 cases per year. It means that 400 Magistrates should be able to dispose of 240,000 cases per year. If these Judicial Officers are properly deployed and motivated why are they disposing of less disputes? Why can’t the Judiciary redistribute its manpower to areas with more disputes and less manpower to the courts that have less disputes? So if Magistrates have the numbers and ability why not move the disputes from the High Court and move them to the Magistrates Courts where they can be disposed of expeditiously.

Are Magistrate qualified and experienced enough to adjudicate Capital cases and other cases within the Jurisdiction of the High Court?

So what is the justification for keeping capital cases in the High Court yet it lacks the manpower and resources to handle the cases? Let me point you a picture. There is a High Court where, there are 700 capital offenders on remand in prison and 290 remands appearing before three Magistrates and one Chief Magistrate. Some of the capital offenders have been on  remand without trial for a period exceeding eight years. The 700 capital cases pending before the high Court are heard in High Court Criminal Sessions. There are at most six criminal sessions a year handling 40 cases each and realistically disposing of 240 to 300 cases per year.

If there were daily hearing, those 700 capital cases can realistically be disposed of in one year. Just like that the backlog of capital cases in one High Court is erased. If this is done in every High Court circuit the backlog arising from capital cases will become something of the past.

It used to that semi capital offenses, that is to say cases whose maximum sentence is life imprisonment such as defilement, attempted murder, and arson were tried only by the High Court. In 2007, this was changed such that the semi capital offenses were transferred to the Chief Magistrates. The system didn’t breakdown. Trials continued as usual. Appeals didn’t increase. Injustice didn’t increase. Backlog in the Chief Magistrates Courts didn’t increase. The criminal justice system didn’t fall apart.

Even when capital cases are devolved to the Magistrates Courts, the criminal justice system will not fall apart. There are 500 sufficiently experienced and qualified Magistrates to adjudicate the capital cases. Every Magistrate is a lawyer with a degree in law and a Post Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from LDC. Most Magistrates have lost enrollment experience of ten years and legally qualify to be appointed High Court judges. So what is special about the High Court judges that Magistrates lack to adjudicate these capital cases? Do they have different qualifications? Are they graduates of Harvard university? Did they attain their experience in some special legal system that gives them special insight? If there is an error by the Magistrates, is there not an appellant system designed to correct errors by the lower court? Do these High Court judges have some special skills and abilities that their counterparts in the Magistrates Courts lack?

If you went are the Magistrates Courts you will be surprised by the skills and abilities of the Magistrates. If you understand the law, then you know that the difference between what happens in the High Court and the Magistrates Courts is a matter of scale. Trespass to land remains trespass to land whether it involves land valued at one hundred billion shillings or land valued at one million shillings. Breach of a contract to supply beans of five million shillings remains a breach of contract for supply of good even when it involves tractors or aeroplanes worth one hundred billion dollars. Aggravated robbery is the same as simple robbery except that in aggravated robbery the thief uses a dangerous weapon such as a knife or panga or a gun. Murder is Grievous bodily harm except with an intent to kill and death of the victim. There is nothing special about what the High Court judges do except that the difference is scale.

The argument used to be that Magistrates are less skilled and experienced than High Court judges but it is now a shallow and stupid comparison. There are Magistrates that have more adjudication experience than Judges of the Supreme Court. There are Magistrates that are academically more qualified than Supreme Court judges. The judgements you read from the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court are drafted and researched by Magistrates. It is not true that Magistrates are more prone to corruption than Judges. Despite the low pay, oppression and neglect of Magistrates the prevalence of corruption in the High Court is similar to that in the Magistrates Courts yet judges are highly paid and facilitated.

If Magistrates were sufficiently paid and facilitated they would be less prone to corruption. Combating corruption is about deterrence, oversight and effectiveness. Corruption can be detected, deterred and reduced if their sufficient oversight and effective accountability mechanisms.

Skills, experience and competence can be cultivated and nurtured. How can the devolution of cases from the High Court be best handled?

Adjudication is not taught anywhere. The skills required to effectively adjudicate disputes are obtained through experience and continuous on the job training. If capital cases and other disputes within the Jurisdiction of the High Court are to be devolved to the Magistrates we need to prepare them for the important task ahead.

It is true some Magistrates have 5 years of post enrollment experience or less. For these Magistrates, the best option is to allow them to handle disputes within their Jurisdiction and a few cases within the Jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrates Courts. The Magistrates will be progressively exposed to high value disputes and obtain on job training and exposure handling those disputes. When they attain eight years of post enrollment experience, they can be introduced to some disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court.

Most Magistrates have the eight years post enrollment experience required to serve as a Chief Magistrate. These Magistrates can be exposed to disputes within the Jurisdiction of Chief Magistrates and those within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. This exposure and training will allow them to effectually take over and adjudicate disputes within the Jurisdiction of the High Court. Within this category there are Magistrates with qualifications to be High Court judges. They can immediately take on cases within the Jurisdiction of the High Court.

For example, if 500 Magistrate could on average each take on 40 cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court, the High Court caseload would reduce by 20,000 cases. Without spending an extra cent on hiring more judges or hiring private lawyers to adjudicate the disputes, the existing structures in the Judiciary have absorbed 20,000 cases from the High Court. You get to train your personnel to effectively adjudicate disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of High Court and you get to reduce pressure on the High Court by simply trusting your people and giving them opportunities to take on more responsibilities.

Eventually you will have qualified and experienced Magistrates with a track record of handling those types of cases. At this point you can move the vast majority of cases from the High Court and leave it to handle appeals and a small number of disputes left in the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court. Just like that backlog will be a thing of the past.

The eventuality in the Worst case scenario

If letting Magistrate hear and adjudicate disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court is not palatable for the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary, at the very least allow Magistrates to take evidence for the High Court judges and the High Court judges make the decision.

Read more

Tags:

Administrator

Our collective efforts in combating corruption in Uganda will create the corruption free society that we love and want. Do not wait for the government to combat corruption because it will not do so since many people that serve in the government benefit from the corruption.

You may also like...