Omnibus inquiry may not save the judiciary
Dec 29, 2004
CORRUPTION in the judiciary, like in any other field of life, is hurting. <br>
EMMANUEL MULONDO
CORRUPTION in the judiciary, like in any other field of life, is hurting.
But maybe the kind of damage may differ, in that where anger is caused by a government official denying me a job and giving it to his kin, corruption in the judiciary means a deadly thug being unleashed onto the community again, an investor losing his investment to an unscrupulous partner, a dangerous driver prying the highways again to claim more lives, and so on.
One way or another, you and me have suffered. But that is ordinary suffering. There is the state suffering. The President has complained of government losing billions of shillings when “judges connive to award litigants exorbitant damages.â€
He has severally threatened a commission of inquiry into the entire institution.
However, critics argue the President’s anger is caused more by political losses government has suffered in courts of law. Whatever the case, the general agreement is that the problem exists.
A conference of the East African Magistrates and Judges Association in Kampala last month concurred on the existence of the problem, especially “among the lower bench.â€
“Lower bench†being magistrates. Some magistrates who attended the conference, as if to confirm the accusation of corruption, complained of poor pay compared to their seniors, the judges.
In the past some of them have been implicated in corruption.
The Inspectorate of Government has trapped some of them. There have been a number of prosecutions and a convictions here and there.
Along these lines, the President’s proposal of an international commission of inquiry, modeled along the lines of the Kenyan Ringera commission instituted by President Mwai Kibaki, would look the most appropriate remedy.
The Ringera commission saw 24 judges and justices and tens of magistrates suspended before its appointment by government.
The commission recommended the prosecution of five Court of Appeal judges, 18 High Court judges and 82 magistrates. That was at the beginning of the year.
Nothing much has been done on the recommendations. However, the more notable bit about it is the reaction at this level. Acting magistrates and judges who were appointed to replace those who retired or those suspended, through their association, criticised the style in which the commission did its work.
Those implicated were not given a hearing, the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) noted at its meeting in March.
Seventeen judges, having lost their esteem due to government criticisms, decided to retire early.
But more dramatic was the decision by the KMJA to fundraise for the defence of one of the Court of Appeal judges implicated in the Ringera report.
Obviously, the stuation was confusion for everyone instead of a solution to public outcry.
Looking at the Kenyan stuation, Benson Tusasirwe, a constitutional law expert, advised Uganda against going the Kenyan way to fight the itching problem.
“It is a very destructive process in the long run. It erodes the confidence of even the innocent judges. It finishes off whatever respect for the judiciary the public may have. In fact it may not even establish the guilt of the culprits.
More importantly it gives the state a golden opportunity to get rid of the judicial officers who may be honest but independent, to replace them with those deemed to be sympathetic to the executive,†Tusasirwe said in a paper he delivered at the EAMJA conference.
If that was the experience of Kenya, does a general inquiry serve the purpose? Can’t Uganda borrow a leaf from the Kenyan brothers experience?
Let the Criminal investigations Department be more vigilant on complaints involving judicial officers. The Inspector General of Government can also do a lot by establishing their wealth and questioning the unexplained wealth of those suspected.
The judiciary itself can do a lot by attending to public complaints instead of waiting to be subjected to shame. This way, everybody can be saved the embarrassment of the criticisms against the judiciary, the executive and all concerned.
The writer is a freelance
journalist
CORRUPTION in the judiciary, like in any other field of life, is hurting.
But maybe the kind of damage may differ, in that where anger is caused by a government official denying me a job and giving it to his kin, corruption in the judiciary means a deadly thug being unleashed onto the community again, an investor losing his investment to an unscrupulous partner, a dangerous driver prying the highways again to claim more lives, and so on.
One way or another, you and me have suffered. But that is ordinary suffering. There is the state suffering. The President has complained of government losing billions of shillings when “judges connive to award litigants exorbitant damages.â€
He has severally threatened a commission of inquiry into the entire institution.
However, critics argue the President’s anger is caused more by political losses government has suffered in courts of law. Whatever the case, the general agreement is that the problem exists.
A conference of the East African Magistrates and Judges Association in Kampala last month concurred on the existence of the problem, especially “among the lower bench.â€
“Lower bench†being magistrates. Some magistrates who attended the conference, as if to confirm the accusation of corruption, complained of poor pay compared to their seniors, the judges.
In the past some of them have been implicated in corruption.
The Inspectorate of Government has trapped some of them. There have been a number of prosecutions and a convictions here and there.
Along these lines, the President’s proposal of an international commission of inquiry, modeled along the lines of the Kenyan Ringera commission instituted by President Mwai Kibaki, would look the most appropriate remedy.
The Ringera commission saw 24 judges and justices and tens of magistrates suspended before its appointment by government.
The commission recommended the prosecution of five Court of Appeal judges, 18 High Court judges and 82 magistrates. That was at the beginning of the year.
Nothing much has been done on the recommendations. However, the more notable bit about it is the reaction at this level. Acting magistrates and judges who were appointed to replace those who retired or those suspended, through their association, criticised the style in which the commission did its work.
Those implicated were not given a hearing, the Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association (KMJA) noted at its meeting in March.
Seventeen judges, having lost their esteem due to government criticisms, decided to retire early.
But more dramatic was the decision by the KMJA to fundraise for the defence of one of the Court of Appeal judges implicated in the Ringera report.
Obviously, the stuation was confusion for everyone instead of a solution to public outcry.
Looking at the Kenyan stuation, Benson Tusasirwe, a constitutional law expert, advised Uganda against going the Kenyan way to fight the itching problem.
“It is a very destructive process in the long run. It erodes the confidence of even the innocent judges. It finishes off whatever respect for the judiciary the public may have. In fact it may not even establish the guilt of the culprits.
More importantly it gives the state a golden opportunity to get rid of the judicial officers who may be honest but independent, to replace them with those deemed to be sympathetic to the executive,†Tusasirwe said in a paper he delivered at the EAMJA conference.
If that was the experience of Kenya, does a general inquiry serve the purpose? Can’t Uganda borrow a leaf from the Kenyan brothers experience?
Let the Criminal investigations Department be more vigilant on complaints involving judicial officers. The Inspector General of Government can also do a lot by establishing their wealth and questioning the unexplained wealth of those suspected.
The judiciary itself can do a lot by attending to public complaints instead of waiting to be subjected to shame. This way, everybody can be saved the embarrassment of the criticisms against the judiciary, the executive and all concerned.
The writer is a freelance
journalist