Computerise Judiciary
Sep 26, 2011
ON March 4, the Justice, Law and Order Sector promised that election petitions would be handled “promptly and expeditiouslyâ€.
ON March 4, the Justice, Law and Order Sector promised that election petitions would be handled “promptly and expeditiouslyâ€.
Then the Judiciary rightly stated that expeditious handling of grievances would reduce post-election violence, build confidence in the judicial system and encourage citizens to resort to courts rather than violence when they feel cheated in elections.
Consequently, the Judiciary set aside 25 judges and 43 chief magistrates to hear election petitions, promising to clear all cases and appeals within six months. This promise was based on past experience. In the 2006 elections, the Judiciary cleared 95% of election petitions within six months.This time, the number of petitions went up. Soon, the Judiciary realised that the progress was slower than anticipated and then extended the deadline to October 30.
However, even the extended deadline is unlikely to be met. Out of 37 appeals, only 12 have been received at the Court of Appeal.
One of the biggest causes of delay is the out-dated method of information capture, processing and storage. It takes long for a small number of secretaries to carefully transcribe and proof-read pages of court proceedings and rulings.
After someone files an appeal, hearing cannot proceed until the proceedings and ruling of the lower courts are submitted to the Court of Appeal. These delays at the lower courts inevitably affect the Court of Appeal. Another major cause of delay is understaffing in the Judiciary.
Uganda has only 44 High Court judges and not all these are available to handle cases. Parliament recently approved a plan to increase the number of High Court judges from 44 to 81 but this has not yet been implemented, partly due to lack of resources.
These challenges need to be addressed by securing resources to make the necessary appointments and computerising the court system.
Whatever the costs of implementing these recommendations, case backlog is more costly in many ways.
Then the Judiciary rightly stated that expeditious handling of grievances would reduce post-election violence, build confidence in the judicial system and encourage citizens to resort to courts rather than violence when they feel cheated in elections.
Consequently, the Judiciary set aside 25 judges and 43 chief magistrates to hear election petitions, promising to clear all cases and appeals within six months. This promise was based on past experience. In the 2006 elections, the Judiciary cleared 95% of election petitions within six months.This time, the number of petitions went up. Soon, the Judiciary realised that the progress was slower than anticipated and then extended the deadline to October 30.
However, even the extended deadline is unlikely to be met. Out of 37 appeals, only 12 have been received at the Court of Appeal.
One of the biggest causes of delay is the out-dated method of information capture, processing and storage. It takes long for a small number of secretaries to carefully transcribe and proof-read pages of court proceedings and rulings.
After someone files an appeal, hearing cannot proceed until the proceedings and ruling of the lower courts are submitted to the Court of Appeal. These delays at the lower courts inevitably affect the Court of Appeal. Another major cause of delay is understaffing in the Judiciary.
Uganda has only 44 High Court judges and not all these are available to handle cases. Parliament recently approved a plan to increase the number of High Court judges from 44 to 81 but this has not yet been implemented, partly due to lack of resources.
These challenges need to be addressed by securing resources to make the necessary appointments and computerising the court system.
Whatever the costs of implementing these recommendations, case backlog is more costly in many ways.