Kwizera's proposal on retirement age for judges is unrealistic

Jul 15, 2013

The failure to appoint judicial officers in Uganda has brought the country to a near crisis in the judiciary. At present there is no substantive Chief Justice (CJ) and deputy Chief Justice.

By Magelah Peter Gwayaka
 
The failure to appoint judicial officers in Uganda has brought the country to a near crisis in the judiciary. At present there is no substantive Chief Justice (CJ) and deputy Chief Justice.
 
The acting deputy CJ has been told to act as a CJ as well. The Uganda Law Society and many legal scholars have argued that this is not only unconstitutional but may also result in abuse of due process of law.
 
In response to this dilemma MP Eddie Kwizera has proposed the “Judicial Officers Vacation” Bill, 2013 to increase the retirement of justices of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Principle Judge. Kwizera argues that the age of 75 years for the CJ and the deputy CJ as well as the 65 years for the principle judge is low and unrealistic.
 
He also notes that Uganda has been losing out the expertise of judges who retire and get appointed in other countries. Many legal scholars have observed that Kwizera’s proposal is an indirect attempt at amending the Constitution, hence illegal.
 
Kwizera’s proposal is based on the argument that 70 years is a low age for judges who may still be productive. With life expectance of 54.4 years and 78% of the country below 30 years of age and close to 80% of these are unemployed, Kwizera’s proposal become unrealistic.
 
The argument that Uganda loses experienced judges/lawyers to neighbouring countries does not hold water, given the fact that the proposed increment in age of retirement will not solve the challenges of low pay and poor working conditions for the judiciary, which is a bigger driving factor for the labour exodus. In fact the Government needs to concentrate on making better working environment for the judiciary as opposed to increasing their age.
 
Beside this is the fact that Uganda does not lack lawyers with experience to occupy the said offices. It is thus useless to hold onto persons who have reached their retirement age, while several youthful Ugandans qualify and possess enough experience to occupy the office.
 
Kwizera’s argument seems to address the cosmetic aspects of employment of judicial officers ignoring the problem of delayed employment of officers in key institutions in the country. A quick look at recent appointments in Uganda reveals continued delays that have affected the functioning of several government agencies.
 
For example the appointment of the IGG and the deputies took more than four years, the appointment of a Solicitor General, appointment of the Chief Registrar, appointment of the Chief Government Valuer all took more than three years.
 
Similar delays in appointing the head of the Uganda Investment Authority, the Chief Executive of Retirement Benefits Authority, National Water and Sewerage, among others, have all affected the functioning of different agencies.
 
The time of retirement of the CJ or any other officer do not happen by accident, but are known before the retirement comes. The failure to replace or to appoint such officers is not a result of a failure to find experienced people.
 
Instead of increasing the retirement age, we should focus on fast-tracking key appointments in the country.
 
Researcher with Advocates Coalition on Development and Environment (ACODE)
 

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});