Judge answers IGG on Muhwezi
The Honourable Principle Judge, reference is made to your administrative directive in which you invited me to respond to the issues the IGG raised in the manner I handled the above petition.
By Opio Aweri
The Honourable Principle Judge, reference is made to your administrative directive in which you invited me to respond to the issues the IGG raised in the manner I handled the above petition. I was accused of the following:
1) Allowing irregularity to stand.
2) Adopting a scheduling conference in a Criminal Revision matter, a procedure unknown to criminal procedure,
3) Offending the principles of natural justice.
My Lord, I take great exceptions to the above allegations, with due respect to the Learned IGG.
The above petition for revision was allocated to me on November 12, 2007 and I took charge of it immediately as required by our Case Management System. I perused the grounds in the petition and on the face of it, realised that certain grounds were not relevant for revision but were grounds for appeal. As ably indicated in her complaint, for revision to be made, issues to be considered must surround:
1) Whether there was material error on the face of the record.
2) Whether there was any miscarriage of justice.
Upon realising that certain grounds were erroneously included on the petition which were relevant for appeal purposes, I notified all the parties and invited them to scale those irrelevant grounds out in order to allow proceedings to move without any delay. Both parties saw sense in my direction, moved out and held their separate consultations and then came before court with merged agreed issues for determination. Those issues were presented by Counsel representing the IGG. Among the issues was the preliminary point of law which the IGG had wanted to raise.
It did not make sense to me to hear one preliminary point of law as that would waste time of court. So since grounds for revision are on points of law, it was prudent to have them argued on their merit. After all that was within discretion of court which the IGG as a judge should be aware of.
I therefore wonder what principles of natural justice had been infringed when both parties were given a hearing even where they did not deserve. It was within my discretion to leave those grounds intact and sort them during my ruling. Natural justice hinges on the maxim “audi inter parteâ€, hear both parties.
Therefore which irregularity did I leave to stand? Did the IGG expect me to throw out the petition without hearing the parties? The whole intention appeared as if she was arguing the merit of her case before your Lordship. I am shocked. May be I have personal problems with Her Lady which I am yet to discover. In any case I need my Lord’s protection in my judicial work.
As for her dissatisfaction that the same lawyers who appeared before me in the Mpuuma case are part of the same team in this petition, I find it even most ridiculous. I do not determine how many times lawyers are to appear before me. The file was allocated to me by your Lordship. I did not direct it to be placed before me. If it is a new style of fighting corruption by restricting the number of times lawyers are to appear before judges I will embrace it with your Lordship’s directives. In all these I feel highly offended by the unwarranted allegations against me from a colleague.
There was no irregularity in the procedure which I undertook. I did not invent any new wheel when I ordered for a case management conference or scheduling conference as the IGG chose to call it. I derived power to do that under Section 14 of the Judicature Act. Conferencing is an established custom and usage internationally and locally. It guarantees assurance of justice to the citizens because it promotes speedy and fair trial, competence, effectiveness and efficiency and above all accountability.
Infact conferencing is captured well in our Judiciary Strategic Plan and Development Programme. Even if I did what was unknown accordingly to the IGG, it is trite law that court can make any order as long as it is done to serve the ends of justice. What I did was to quicken the trial process. Therefore it was done in good faith and in the interest of a speedy, fair trial and justice. In modern judicial practice, courts of law are supposed to be proactive and not act mechanically. This is well known, I believe, to the Learned IGG
Another issue I would like to join here is the locus standi of this complainant. The complaint is that I made judicial errors. To my understanding, judicial errors are corrected by way of appeals and not administrative directions. If the learned IGG was doubting my impartiality she should have applied formally or informally before me whereupon I would make a ruling whether or not to step down. That is a normal practice well known to every judicial officer, unless the learned IGG has forgotten too soon.
Lastly, I would like to appeal to the learned IGG as a judge to add more value to the office of the IGG and help the judiciary and indeed all other stakeholders fight corruption other than crying “Wolves! Wolves!†where there are none. In Luo society there is a saying that “Cingi keni pe konyi†meaning your hands alone cannot help you. The learned IGG should cooperate with other agencies if she is to be a prophet(ess) of hope in the fight against corruption.
The writer is a High Court Judge
The Honourable Principle Judge, reference is made to your administrative directive in which you invited me to respond to the issues the IGG raised in the manner I handled the above petition. I was accused of the following:
1) Allowing irregularity to stand.
2) Adopting a scheduling conference in a Criminal Revision matter, a procedure unknown to criminal procedure,
3) Offending the principles of natural justice.
My Lord, I take great exceptions to the above allegations, with due respect to the Learned IGG.
The above petition for revision was allocated to me on November 12, 2007 and I took charge of it immediately as required by our Case Management System. I perused the grounds in the petition and on the face of it, realised that certain grounds were not relevant for revision but were grounds for appeal. As ably indicated in her complaint, for revision to be made, issues to be considered must surround:
1) Whether there was material error on the face of the record.
2) Whether there was any miscarriage of justice.
Upon realising that certain grounds were erroneously included on the petition which were relevant for appeal purposes, I notified all the parties and invited them to scale those irrelevant grounds out in order to allow proceedings to move without any delay. Both parties saw sense in my direction, moved out and held their separate consultations and then came before court with merged agreed issues for determination. Those issues were presented by Counsel representing the IGG. Among the issues was the preliminary point of law which the IGG had wanted to raise.
It did not make sense to me to hear one preliminary point of law as that would waste time of court. So since grounds for revision are on points of law, it was prudent to have them argued on their merit. After all that was within discretion of court which the IGG as a judge should be aware of.
I therefore wonder what principles of natural justice had been infringed when both parties were given a hearing even where they did not deserve. It was within my discretion to leave those grounds intact and sort them during my ruling. Natural justice hinges on the maxim “audi inter parteâ€, hear both parties.
Therefore which irregularity did I leave to stand? Did the IGG expect me to throw out the petition without hearing the parties? The whole intention appeared as if she was arguing the merit of her case before your Lordship. I am shocked. May be I have personal problems with Her Lady which I am yet to discover. In any case I need my Lord’s protection in my judicial work.
As for her dissatisfaction that the same lawyers who appeared before me in the Mpuuma case are part of the same team in this petition, I find it even most ridiculous. I do not determine how many times lawyers are to appear before me. The file was allocated to me by your Lordship. I did not direct it to be placed before me. If it is a new style of fighting corruption by restricting the number of times lawyers are to appear before judges I will embrace it with your Lordship’s directives. In all these I feel highly offended by the unwarranted allegations against me from a colleague.
There was no irregularity in the procedure which I undertook. I did not invent any new wheel when I ordered for a case management conference or scheduling conference as the IGG chose to call it. I derived power to do that under Section 14 of the Judicature Act. Conferencing is an established custom and usage internationally and locally. It guarantees assurance of justice to the citizens because it promotes speedy and fair trial, competence, effectiveness and efficiency and above all accountability.
Infact conferencing is captured well in our Judiciary Strategic Plan and Development Programme. Even if I did what was unknown accordingly to the IGG, it is trite law that court can make any order as long as it is done to serve the ends of justice. What I did was to quicken the trial process. Therefore it was done in good faith and in the interest of a speedy, fair trial and justice. In modern judicial practice, courts of law are supposed to be proactive and not act mechanically. This is well known, I believe, to the Learned IGG
Another issue I would like to join here is the locus standi of this complainant. The complaint is that I made judicial errors. To my understanding, judicial errors are corrected by way of appeals and not administrative directions. If the learned IGG was doubting my impartiality she should have applied formally or informally before me whereupon I would make a ruling whether or not to step down. That is a normal practice well known to every judicial officer, unless the learned IGG has forgotten too soon.
Lastly, I would like to appeal to the learned IGG as a judge to add more value to the office of the IGG and help the judiciary and indeed all other stakeholders fight corruption other than crying “Wolves! Wolves!†where there are none. In Luo society there is a saying that “Cingi keni pe konyi†meaning your hands alone cannot help you. The learned IGG should cooperate with other agencies if she is to be a prophet(ess) of hope in the fight against corruption.
The writer is a High Court Judge