Judicial Service Commission Uganda

“The Service Delivery Standards have been developed in response to increasing public expectations for fairness, accountability, and a citizen-centred justice delivery system. As these standards are implemented, the Judicial Service Commission must take into account the growing demands placed upon it. These include addressing human resource gaps, strengthening disciplinary processes to uphold integrity, expanding judicial and public legal education, and responding effectively to broader government priorities. The Service Delivery Standards establish measurable benchmarks for efficiency, transparency, effectiveness, and accountability in the Commission’s operations and service delivery. The shift towards digital service delivery and automated workflows is no longer optional—it is an essential requirement for improving institutional performance. Efficient administration, fair disciplinary processes, and ethical leadership remain central to Uganda’s development aspirations. The implementation of these Service Delivery Standards should therefore provide renewed momentum for achieving these objectives.” Dr. Theopista Mary Wenene

“As part of our mandate, we conduct inspections of courts across the country. During these inspections, we assess compliance with the Constitution, the Judicial Service Act, and other applicable laws. We also examine how incidents of corruption and misconduct are handled so that we can identify gaps and recommend appropriate interventions. In addition to inspections, we undertake community sensitisation programmes to educate members of the public on their rights, available reporting mechanisms, and the role of the Commission. Through these activities, we have identified several emerging issues that I wish to share with this meeting. We have proposed solutions to address them, and we also welcome further guidance on how these challenges can be tackled more effectively. Sophisticated Nature of Corruption The first emerging issue is that corruption has become increasingly sophisticated. Today, corruption rarely involves a person directly approaching a judicial officer with money. Instead, complex networks have developed through which illicit payments are channelled. Intermediaries are used, making it much more difficult to identify the source of the corruption or the individuals involved. The challenge before us is therefore to develop effective mechanisms for identifying and dismantling these networks so that corruption can be addressed at its source. Corruption has also become increasingly digital. Financial transactions are now commonly conducted through electronic and mobile money platforms, making traditional methods of investigation less effective. We are currently following up a number of investigations in which electronic money transfers appear to have been used to facilitate corrupt transactions. While the existence of a transfer alone does not prove corruption, these financial trails provide useful leads that enable investigators to establish relationships, identify patterns, and gather supporting evidence. Another emerging concern is that corruption is inherently a two-way transaction. In many cases, individuals who willingly participate in corrupt dealings only come forward to report the matter after disagreements arise or after the expected outcome is not achieved. Often, complaints are made only after judgment has been delivered because the person who paid the bribe feels they have been cheated. By the time such reports are received, valuable evidence has already been lost, making investigations significantly more difficult. The Commission therefore continues to encourage members of the public to report suspected corruption promptly so that investigations can begin while evidence is still available. Unfortunately, delayed reporting often results from fear. Many people worry that if they report corruption, they may face retaliation, harassment, or victimisation. Another important issue is the implementation of whistleblower and witness protection measures. Many people remain reluctant to report corruption because they are unaware of the legal protections available to them or they lack confidence that those protections will be effectively enforced. There is therefore a need to strengthen whistleblower and witness protection mechanisms while increasing public awareness of the existing legal framework. Building public confidence in these protections is essential if more people are to come forward with information. The Commission has also observed concerns regarding attempts to influence judicial processes. Such influence is not always direct or overt. It may arise through personal relationships, family connections, friendships, or other informal channels that create pressure on judicial officers.” Mr. Geofrey Ntaro, Deputy Registrar, Anti Corruption. JSC

“If we are to increase access to justice, the first step is to increase public awareness and knowledge of the law. One area that particularly stands out is the administration of estates. I believe there is hardly anyone who is not affected by this area of law—either as a beneficiary, a personal representative, or a member of a family whose estate must be administered after the death of a loved one. In one way or another, every family is likely to encounter this process. Unfortunately, when a family member dies, relatives often act out of grief, misunderstanding, or self-interest by taking possession of or laying claim to the deceased’s property before the prescribed legal procedures have been followed. This frequently prejudices the lawful beneficiaries. The situation is further compounded by the limited availability and accessibility of legal representation, particularly for vulnerable persons who lack the financial means to obtain legal services or who are simply unaware of their legal rights.” Ag. Registrar LEPAR JSC Mr. Samuel Mugisa

“The disciplinary mechanism is one of the ways through which judicial officers are subjected to checks and balances. Within the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), the Commission has delegated the disciplinary function to the Disciplinary Committee. It is one of the Commission’s committees, and I am privileged to chair it together with three other Commissioners. During the Financial Year 2025/2026, as the Chairperson has already indicated, several reforms were introduced in the handling of disciplinary matters. The purpose of these reforms was to ensure that every complaint, from the time it is received by the Commission until it is concluded, remains under the oversight of the Commission. The role delegated to the Disciplinary Committee is not absolute. The Committee only makes recommendations to the full Commission, and no decision of the Committee takes effect without the approval of the full Commission. Therefore, the Committee itself is also subject to oversight. The Disciplinary Committee operates independently in conducting its work, meaning that the Chairperson and other Commissioners do not interfere with its proceedings. However, every decision of the Committee is scrutinized by the full Commission before it is communicated or implemented. Furthermore, the Judicial Service Commission Regulations provide that where the Committee recommends a disciplinary sanction against a judicial officer or another member of the Judiciary staff, the Attorney General must be notified before the decision is implemented, where the law so requires. Performance During FY 2025/2026 During the last financial year, the Committee handled a total of 397 disciplinary matters. At the preliminary evaluation stage, some complaints were closed because they fell outside the Commission’s mandate. These included complaints against other justice sector actors such as police officers, prosecutors, and other agencies. Such complaints were referred to the appropriate institutions for action. The Chairperson has already highlighted the reforms undertaken by the Commission. These reforms streamlined disciplinary processes, resulting in greater efficiency and improved case management. One major reform was increasing the Committee’s sittings from three meetings per quarter to 48 meetings per year. This enabled the Committee to review more cases, conduct more hearings, and submit more recommendations to the full Commission for approval. As a result of these reforms, the Commission registered significant institutional achievements. The disciplinary case backlog was reduced by over 35 percent. I am also pleased to report that by the end of the financial year, all backlog cases had been cleared. The Committee also prioritized disciplinary matters involving officers who had already left the Commission’s service. This helped prevent prolonged unresolved cases while promoting fairness, accountability, integrity, and timely disciplinary processes. Another important reform was enhanced collaboration with stakeholders. The Committee has strengthened its working relationship with: The Office of the Attorney General; The Judiciary; and The Judiciary’s own Disciplinary Committee. A stakeholders’ meeting between the Judicial Service Commission’s Disciplinary Committee and the Judiciary’s Disciplinary Committee was held to formalize this collaboration. A number of important issues were discussed, and we expect to report even greater achievements during future stakeholder engagements. Going forward, we also intend to strengthen collaboration with other institutions, including: As the Hon. Chief Justice has often emphasized, we are all serving one Government with limited resources. Therefore, it is important that institutions coordinate their efforts rather than duplicate them.” Hon. Attorney General Sam Mayanja

“Performance management is essential if we are to build an efficient and accountable Judiciary. Every judicial officer should have measurable performance indicators. When an officer appears before a promotions or appraisal committee, the committee should be able to review objective performance data and determine whether that officer has met the required standards. In this way, promotions will be based on evidence rather than perception. Officers will also be able to assess their own performance and identify areas that require improvement. Performance measurement should therefore become an important tool in transforming justice delivery. If we are truly committed to transforming the administration of justice, we cannot continue relying solely on traditional and outdated methods of operation. Innovation is the catalyst that will propel our justice system into the future. The Judiciary has already embraced technology through the rollout of the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS). This digital platform has streamlined case filing, reduced unnecessary physical interactions, enhanced transparency, and improved efficiency in the administration of justice. Innovation also extends to the way disputes are resolved. We must continue promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, including mediation, plea bargaining, and other appropriate forms of dispute resolution. Not every disagreement requires a lengthy court process. By encouraging ADR, we reduce case backlogs, save both time and financial resources, and promote social harmony within our communities. On the part of the Judicial Service Commission, technology should likewise be embraced to ensure that recruitment, appointments, promotions, and disciplinary processes are conducted transparently, efficiently, and within reasonable timelines. I am aware of one of the challenges that has already been mentioned—the fact that Commissioners serve on a part-time basis. Given the Commission’s expanding constitutional mandate, this presents a significant challenge. Today, the Commission is responsible not only for appointments and discipline but also for several additional functions assigned to it by law. It is therefore becoming increasingly difficult to discharge all these responsibilities effectively within the current structure. While this arrangement is established by the Constitution, we should continue exploring practical ways of strengthening the Commission’s institutional capacity, including the possibility of increasing full-time support where appropriate. Transforming justice delivery requires close collaboration between the Judiciary and the Judicial Service Commission. More importantly, it requires a whole-of-justice-sector approach. I therefore call upon all justice sector institutions—including the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Uganda Police Force, the Uganda Prisons Service, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, the Uganda Law Society, and the private Bar—to continue working together in seamless partnership. We must harmonise our processes, share information, and strengthen coordination. For example, where there are security threats affecting judicial officers or court operations, institutions responsible for intelligence and security should identify those risks early and work collaboratively to address them before they disrupt the administration of justice. Working together in this manner will help eliminate bottlenecks, reduce case backlogs, improve public confidence, and strengthen the rule of law. Above all, our goal must remain clear: to ensure that every Ugandan, regardless of social or economic status, has access to timely, affordable, and impartial justice. As I conclude, I reaffirm the Judiciary’s commitment to upholding the highest standards of integrity, accountability, professionalism, and innovation.”