Uganda judiciary to hold court in refugee camps; warn police on judicial independence

14 February 2020 · Carmel Rickard

It has been a busy time for Uganda's judiciary, in the media for contrasting reasons. The judiciary put its collective foot down after police summonsed a magistrate in connection with a case he had heard and which the police were also investigating. In a strongly-worded statement the judiciary said that such actions were ‘irregular’ and that the police ‘cannot summon judicial officers to explain how they handle court cases.’ Another, more positive development, has seen the judiciary in discussion with the Refugee Law Project over holding court sessions in refugee camps starting as soon as next month. Uganda hosts about 1.4 milllion refugees, more than any other African country, and this step is seen as highly significant in offering refugees in camps better access to justice.

Uganda’s judiciary, through its acting chief registrar, has reacted strongly to an almost unheard-of event: police investigators have summoned a judicial officer in connection with a case he has handled.

A statement issued earlier this week on behalf of ‘the judiciary’ of Uganda, refers to a media report entitled, ‘Magistrate summoned over controversial land eviction order’.

That report noted that police had ‘summoned a magistrate’ to record a statement related to an investigation they were carrying out. Their inquires concern an alleged illegal eviction and malicious damage to property matter arising from a civil case heard in the Hoima chief magistrates court.

Acting chief registrar of the judiciary, Tom Chemutai, followed up the report by advising the director, criminal investigations, that ‘it is irregular for the police to summon a magistrate over a court decision.’

‘The police cannot summon judicial officers to explain how they handle cases,’ Chemutai said. He added, ‘Police can only seek clarification from court about a decision made in any matter.’

He explained why police are barred from summonsing judicial officers in connection with their official work, by referring to Uganda’s constitution which says that ‘in exercise of judicial power, the courts shall be independent and shall not be subject to the control or direction of any person or authority.’ Another section of the constitution said that ‘a person exercising judicial power shall not be liable to any action or suit for any act or omission by that person in the exercise of judicial power.’

Chemutai went on to explain that this did not mean that judicial officers were not accountable to any higher authority. Anyone dissatisfied with a court decision could appeal to a higher court. In addition, any court users with complaints related to the conduct of any judicial officer was entitled to petition the inspectorate of courts, the chief registrar or the Judicial Service Commission and ask for proper investigations to be conducted and appropriate action taken.

Uganda’s judiciary has also been in the news for a less controversial reason. A team from the Refugee Law Project (RLP) recently visited the new resident judge of Masindi, Judge Gadenya Paul Wolimbwa, because they wanted to discuss the possibility of holding a high court criminal session in the refugee camp at Kiryandongo.

Judge Wolimbwa said he welcomed the intervention as timely, and urged the RLP to collaborate with the judiciary to establish mobile courts as another way of bringing services to under-represented areas. He added that this would allow both refugees and the host communities to benefit.

The question of access to justice for refugees is crucial but often neglected. Uganda hosts more refugees than any other African country: the most recent figures put the number at around 1.4 million.

During their discussions, Judge Wolimbwa said he was willing to consider holding a criminal session of 240 cases in March, if all the necessary preparatory work had been done by then.

An official report on the discussions, issued by the Uganda judiciary, said the RLP would be signing a memorandum of understanding with the judiciary, to provide ‘mechanisms’ for the planned session.

Carmel Rickard

About the author

Recent articles by Carmel Rickard

‘No justification for the unjustifiable’: Lesotho’s ombud slams grand-scale torture, assault in Maseru prison

22 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Lesotho’s national ombud, Tlotliso Angelina Polaki, has issued a scathing report on massive-scale torture and assaults that took place in Maseru’s central correctional institution during December 2023, leaving about 95% of the inmates of the prison injured, one dead and one who is now wheelchair-bound and will never walk again.

Major court decision on image rights benefits Ugandan soccer players

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Members of Uganda’s national soccer team from the period around 2007/8 have just been awarded a payout against MTN Uganda by the commercial court. The telecom giant had a year-long contract with Proline, the players’ originating development soccer club, allowing it to use the players’ images for advertising. But MTN had continued to use their images even after that contract expired on the basis that it had a sponsorship agreement with Fufa, soccer’s governing body in Uganda. The players then challenged MTN in court, through Proline, and have now won a significant damages award. But the judgment exposed some serious flaws in the way that Fufa has approached the question of using the image rights of its senior players, and the court commented that this is a ‘case study’ for why Fufa needs to sort out its contractual arrangements with senior players.

Executive interference in Ugandan court decisions continues – this time by the justice minister

21 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Uganda’s minister of justice, Norbert Mao, has taken a leaf straight from the book of the country’s president, Yoweri Museveni. This week, the minister wrote to the principal judge of the Ugandan high court, asking that the judge directly intervene in a matter that has been brought to his attention by an MP on behalf of a constituent. Mao asked for the ‘immediate administrative intervention’ in the matter by the principal judge. Earlier this year, Museveni wrote a similar letter to the chief justice of Uganda, also requesting intervention in a matter, and the CJ later indicated that this was not the first time it had happened.

Is rape by family members treated too lightly by the law?

19 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

The high court has sent the case of a Malawian teenager, charged with raping his 89-year-old grandmother, back to the magistrate’s court for a possible re-trial because the court had wrongly prosecuted a case of rape instead of incest. If convicted in a re-trial, however, Malawi’s incest law could see the accused sentenced to a mere five years. Malawi’s penal code provides for a significant difference between the sentence to be imposed when a man rapes a close family member, and in a case where the two are not related. When they are unrelated, the code provides that a rape offender ‘shall be liable to be punished with death or with imprisonment for life’ (However, Malawi has had what amounts to a moratorium on carrying out the death penalty since 1992.) By contrast, ‘incest by males’, is categorised in the code as a ‘felony’, and anyone convicted ‘shall be liable for imprisonment for five years’. There is an exception: if it is proved ‘that the female person is under the age of 16, the offender shall be liable to imprisonment for life’.

Prominent SA advocates lose battle over conviction in Namibian courts for working without a permit, misleading immigration officials

6 March 2024
Carmel Rickard

Two prominent South African advocates have just lost their last hope of squashing their convictions in the Namibian courts. Johannesburg advocates, Mike Hellens SC and Dawie Joubert SC, had been found guilty on two counts, first, working as legal practitioners without an employment permit, and second, giving false or misleading information to immigration officers when they entered the country in 2019. Though they had gone to Namibia to appear in court in a bail application, they told the immigration officials they were there for a ‘visit’ and for a ‘meeting’. Both appealed against their conviction but they had also asked for a judicial review of the decision. In the high court they lost their appeal but won on the review. The outcome in both matters were taken to the apex supreme court for a final word. In December 2023, they lost their appeal at the supreme court. What would that same court say when the state appealed against the review finding? The supreme court has now given its answer: it found the review, that had favoured Hellens and Joubert, was wrongly decided, and set it aside, awarding costs against the two advocates in both the high court and the supreme court.