Judiciary questioned over performance

Jul 21, 2011

MEMBERS of Parliament have questioned the Judiciary over its performance.

By Joyce Namutebi

MEMBERS of Parliament have questioned the Judiciary over its performance.

During a meeting with senior officials from the Judiciary yesterday, MPs on the legal and parliamentary affairs committee expressed disappointment with the institution over several issues, including the decline in the number of cases being disposed of.

Committee chairperson Stephen Tashobya said the Judiciary should be concerned by the decline.

“We want to support you to have more judges, but we expect you to optimally utilise the staff you have. It is a concern to us that cases disposed of have declined,” he said.

Tashobya noted that in 2009/2010, the Supreme Court disposed of 101 cases and 73 in 2010/2011 while the Court of Appeal disposed of 581 cases in 2009/2010. Last year, it disposed of 372 cases.

Tashobya questioned the team on the working hours of the Judiciary. He said on some days, courts upcountry do not work at all. Some courts, he said, open at 11:00am.

He said the MPs were also disappointed because up to now, the Administration of Justice Bill had not been brought to Parliament.

He said the committee would raise the matter with the Attorney General, Peter Nyombi.

Tashobya also noted that Parliament would decide whether to approve the vote of the Judicial Service Commission because it was not fully constituted up to now.

On bail, the MPs questioned why the Judiciary has never acted on the committee’s proposal to have URA officers at courts to collect bail money. MPs suggested that this would save people from going to prison because they cannot pay bail money in banks on time.

The concerns were raised after the Judiciary’s Undersecretary, Ngene Muhindo, who led the delegation, had made a presentation to the committee on the Judiciary policy statement for the 2011/2012.

Prior to the start of the meeting, Tashobya had questioned the team as to why the Judiciary had not been represented at the highest level in the committee.

“It is only that we have a lot of sympathy for the Judiciary. We would have requested you to go back,” he said.

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