The Uganda Law Society has taken a firm stance against what they deem as an unlawful directive issued by Principal Judge Flavian Zeija, calling for the cessation of Justice Stephen Mubiru’s involvement in adjudicating any new commercial cases.
It’s important to note that earlier this month, the head of the High Court authored a letter titled “Completion of Pending Judgments and Rulings before Proceeding with Further Cases at the High Court Commercial Division.”
This correspondence was directed to Justice Mubiru, expressing dissatisfaction with the judge’s approach to duty, which, according to the head of the court, has contributed to a significant rise in pending cases, leading to a backlog.
“As of November 22, 2023, your lordship had 170 pending judgments and rulings. This number constitutes the biggest number of judgments and rulings pending before a single Judge at the High Court Level. The majority of those judgments and rulings have been pending before you for unreasonably long periods, contrary to Principle 6.2 of the Judicial Code of Conduct,” Justice Zeija added.
In that same letter, Justice Zeija explicitly directed that Justice Mubiru should refrain from presiding over any new cases or receiving new case files until an official report, confirming the completion and delivery of all pending judgments and rulings, is submitted to the office.
“Your allocated workload at the High Court Commercial Division is effective December 05, 2023, restricted to only pending judgments and rulings. You are directed to write and deliver all pending judgements and rulings within sixty days effective December 05, 2023. During this period, you are further directed not to hear any case or be allocated any new files, until a satisfactory report has been availed to this office indicating that you have written and delivered all pending judgments and rulings,” he said in the letter.
However, in a resounding declaration, the Uganda Law Society through their president Bernard Oundo has vehemently criticized this directive, asserting its contravention of legal principles and raising concerns about the integrity of the judicial process. This unprecedented move by the Law Society signifies a pivotal moment in Uganda’s legal landscape, amplifying the growing discourse surrounding judicial independence and the preservation of due process within the country’s legal system.
In the letter directed to Justice Zeija, the society has cautioned him that although he expressed his concerns on the case backlog his direction towards a fellow judge was illegal and has grave implications on fundamental tenets of the administration of justice starting with the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.
Oundo also warned the Principal Judge that each judge takes a solemn oath to administer justice independently without fear or favour, and once assigned a matter, a judge is duty-bound to hear it and render a decision.
“The Judicature Act (Cap. 13), does not in any way empower your office to constrain any judge from hearing cases. Section 20 you have cited, only empowers your office on distribution of business in the High Court. It does not empower your office to direct how a judge handles his docket, and in particular to refrain from hearing cases already assigned to a judge,” he said.
He added; “Secondly, it is particularly troubling that your directive appears to come in the wake of a landmark ruling by Hon. Justice Mubiru on the independence of the Judiciary in which he criticized your interference with a decision of a Registrar. The timing of your directive makes it appear retaliatory and an attack on Hon. Justice Mubiru for his judicial decision. This does not bode well for public confidence and trust in the judiciary, and can only have a dampening effect on the confidence of the members of the Judiciary. As an individual, the performance of Hon. Justice Mubiru has been exemplary for the number of decisions he has delivered and also the quality, depth and reasoning displayed in the decisions.”
The Uganda Law Society’s strong denouncement of the Principal Judge’s directive underscores the importance of upholding judicial independence while addressing case backlogs, highlighting the delicate balance between administrative directives and safeguarding the integrity of the judicial process.
However, this development poses a critical juncture for Uganda’s legal system, emphasizing the imperative of preserving fair and efficient justice delivery.
Do you have a story in your community or an opinion to share with us: Email us at Submit an Article
