To him, a spade is certainly a spade

By Denis Ocwich
HIS bold eyes stare constantly into my face, hardly ever blinking. Occasionally he raises his voice to stress a point.
A few months ago, Prof. George Kanyeihamba kicked up a storm when he said peasants had no decision-making powers in government. In a typical payback swipe, President Yoweri Museveni labelled him “unfit” to be a High Court judge.
But to the contrary, he is a judge of international repute.
After successfully chairing a panel of Commonwealth judges set up to probe corruption in the Kenyan judiciary in 2002, Kanyeihamba has been trusted by the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists with a similar role — to lead a fact-finding committee on the independence of the judiciary in Kenya. The probe runs December 14-18.
“I am very delighted that the international community and the Kenyan public can trust a Ugandan to come up with suggestions which may help solve their problems,” says 64-year-old Kanyeihamba.
In the previous probe, he worked with Justice Damian Lubuva of the Tanzania Appeal Court, Lady Justice Yvonne Mokgoro of the South Africa Constitutional Court, Justice Robert Sharpe of the Ontario Appeal Court, Canada and Prof. Ed Ratushny of the University of Ottawa, Canada. They were invited by the Kenya Constitutional Review Commission through the Commonwealth Secretariat.
Kanyeihamba and his colleagues unearthed widespread corruption in the Kenyan courts. And what followed was a 62-page report, which recommended a wide range of reforms in the judiciary.
“Following our recommendations, half of the High Court judges resigned, three-quarters of the Court of Appeal judges and many magistrates also resigned,” he says.
Two years after the Kenya probe, Kanyeihamba was given another task in the Kingdom of Swaziland, this time, to probe the impasse between the judiciary and the executive. That was also success, and the Swazi government is now implementing some of the recommendations.
So what lessons can he bring over to Uganda?
Fortunately, he says, the Ugandan scenario is not as bad as the Kenyan one, where there was blatant extortion by judges, “to the extent that even MPs were prepared to mention the names of the judges who took bribes.”
However, he agrees, something ought to be done so that corruption in Uganda does not hit the roof.
On the recent hint by Museveni that he would set up an enquiry into corruption within the judiciary, Kanyeihamba says it is a welcome move, provided it is done within the Constitution.
He stresses, “In fact it may strengthen the institution, it may improve it.”
He, however, observes that the government is dragging its feet to investigate the judiciary because there have been widespread allegations of corruption.
“Certainly there are elements of maladministration and corruption in Uganda (judiciary), particularly in the lower benches.
“So many names have been mentioned informally, and fingers pointed at certain people. These rumours should be investigated and people (the accused) are either declared innocent or dealt with in accordance with the law.
“A judiciary which is corrupt, or which is suspected of being corrupt, and you have not cleared it, cannot deliver proper justice in the eyes of the public.”
Perhaps after Kenya, next will be Uganda, where corruption seems to be glowing, despite denials by the big shots in government. Maybe we need people like Kanyeihamba in Uganda’s judiciary — very active and vocal. Unlike other judges who rarely feature on public debates and fear criticising government weaknesses, Kanyeihamba is a down-to-earth judge who calls a spade a spade.
He will need to lend Uganda a bit of the skills he employed in Kenya, or bring over colleagues he worked with in Kenya, to help cleanse our judiciary of the bit-by-bit accusations. He personally admits: “Certainly the international community has faith in me as somebody who comes up with results, and who is not afraid to say what ought to be said about any institution.”
Ends