Ugandan judiciary has done a very good job

PERSPECTIVE OF A UGANDAN IN CANADA
Opiyo Oloya

In the last several weeks since Dr. Kizza Besigye was arrested, remanded in jail and released on Monday, the Uganda judiciary has been dragged through mud.

There was the ignominious siege of the High Court by heavily armed men in blackfollowed by a government minister haranguing the judiciary for speaking out against that very incident which many saw as naked intimidation of the courts.

Just before Christmas, as the dust was settling, two members of Besigye’s team alleged that two justices took bribes from the executive branch of the government in order to deliver a lopsided judgment against the accused.

Now, in the North American street lingo, everyone just needs to chill out, take a deep breath, and appreciate what the judiciary has done for the country.

A good look at the Uganda judiciary may be cause enough for celebration rather than bickering and acrimony as have been the case lately. There are many good things going for it. Since independence in 1962, Uganda’s judiciary has matured, grown stronger becoming at once the very bedrock of a just society, and of democracy itself.

Over almost five decades, even as the politic of the nation has at times gone to the dogs with partisans dishing it out to the “other side”, the judiciary has remained steadfast, generally balanced, fair, and doing what it is supposed to do with very limited resources while keeping clear of the political mudslinging.

In fact, like their kin in Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, and wherever, the English common law took root, generally, the Uganda justices are appointed to the bench with complete independence to carry out their duty to society, the common person, and as far as possible right a wrong. In this regard, they have delivered the goods and some.

Now, compare that, say to the US justice system where some circuit judges are elected on partisan political tickets, and highly politicised justices of the US Supreme Court tend to leave ideological footprints in landmark cases.

In his book titled Letters to a young lawyer, renowned American legal scholar Professor Alan Dershowitz warned that it is naïve to assume intellectual honesty among (American) judges.

Highly exposed to political turbulence, the American judicial system is vulnerable to influence peddling and in some instances outright corruption. For example, in the famous case known as Operation Greylord, as many as 19 judges in Cook County Illinois were convicted of corruption and influence peddling in the 1980s.

The FBI investigation found that the judges flagrantly “fixed” cases including murder even where there was enough evidence for conviction. Several took thousands of dollars as payment.

One arresting officer was quoted as saying that “…the judges, the lawyers, and the people we arrested were all joined at the hip. It was a brotherhood of corruption where you take care of me, I’ll take care of you.”

Critics of the US judicial system have also pointed out that judges are vulnerable through carefully camouflaged retreats, receptions and seminars organised by very rich and powerful law firms that may have cases before the very same judges. There are too many instances where judgment favoured the powerful.

However, appointed through the recommendation of an arms-length body, Uganda justices do have a better insulation from the vagaries of corruption and influence peddling. Indeed, while anything is possible, it is fair to say that the Uganda judiciary has demonstrated over several decades that it is both possible to remain relatively poor and yet deliver honest and clean verdicts.

While some of the work done by the good justices of the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court are highly visible like the revealing inquiries conducted in 1999 by Justice Julia Sebutinde into police corruption, followed by junk helicopters hearing in 2001 and the on-going inquiry into Global Funds scandal by Justice James Ogoola, many issues are quietly resolved without as much as a ripple in the water.
No doubt, every single justice of the court has his or her personal likes and dislikes through which legal issues are viewed.

However, rather than being seen as a negative, it is healthy to have a variety of opinions, even bias, because the aggregation of these opinions will ensure a strong rather than a weak court that covers all the bases.

Part of the problem is that in the current overheated political landscape where each opposing side strongly believes it has a better, and higher moral standing than the other side, few care to recognise a good thing if it bit them in the face.

However, it is a testimony of the judicial independence and strength of character of the women and men serving the judiciary that for close to half a century the courts have remained generally scandal-free. It is therefore very disheartening, in fact downright depressing when the men and women of the judicial system are subjected to accusations of malpractice, corruption and even personal biases.

Sure, the judges are themselves human with all the attendant weaknesses and follies.

However, in so far as rendering decisions on criminal or civil matters are concerned, they have demonstrated wisdom, high legal skills, and good old commonsense. They may anger us, make us feel cheated, happy, jubilant, but the bottom line is that they do what they do with the best information they have.

The point here is very simple. Ugandans need to leave the judiciary alone to do its work.

Opiyo.oloya@sympatico.ca