Due to the breadth of the reform programme, working groups are extensions of the Technical Committee that offer in-depth consideration that would otherwise not be possible in the Technical Committee. Working Groups do not have decision-making powers. They report to the Technical Committee for decisions related to resource allocation and management.

The Technical Committee largely operates through the following Working Groups:

1. Access to Justice Civil is subdivided into two sub-committees (Civil main and Land Justice
2. Access to Justice Criminal - with one sub-committee (Children and Family justice)
3. Human Rights and Accountability.
4. Transitional Justice.
5. Budget Working group
6. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) Working Group.

All chairpersons of working groups are selected by the Technical Committee from its membership, while alternate chairpersons of each Working Group are determined annually by members of each WG.

The Advisors in the Secretariat support the working groups in accordance with their respective portfolios.

##

At the Regional Level, SDP V maintains the Regional Chain-Linked Committees (RCC). Regions under JLOS SDP V will be equivalent to the High Court Circuits.

The RCC is chaired by the Most Senior Resident judge in the Circuit; with the Registrar as Secretary and comprised of the Chairpersons of all DCCs in the circuit and all JLOS institutional representatives with a regional mandate. Regional Chain-linked committees guide the rollout of SDP V in the circuit; backstop and provide direction to DCCs; link DCCs to the national level and vice versa and craft regional solutions to ensure attainment of JLOS SDP V results. RCCs are the conduits for information at the regional level; are a technical resource to DCCs and play an oversight role over SDP V implementation.

##

At the District level, JLOS is represented by the JLOS District Chain Linked Committee. This role is vital to SDP V implementation.  DCCs are responsible for joint planning, supervising, monitoring and evaluation of performance against set targets.   The DCCs are the frontline of JLOS management, and their effectiveness has the most influence on the effectiveness of the JLOS SIP V primary outputs and impact. DCCs are responsible for rallying all district based JLOS and non-JLOS resources towards the attainment of JLOS targets individually in their respective institutions and as a collective. Detailed roles of the DCCs will be spelt out in the Management Policy. Resources have been allocated to improve the governance; management systems and introduction of DCCs to results-based management systems and to ensure that DCCs have full knowledge of the JLOS SDP, annual and quarterly targets. 

The DCC comprises of the following representatives:

1. JLOS institutional representatives at the district level
2. Representatives of the legal profession
3. District Probation and Social Welfare Officers.
4. Relevant CSOs, Faith-based organizations and community structures engaged in advancing justice law and order in the district.
5. The Local government representatives
6. Nominated members of the public.

The DCC is chaired by the most senior judicial officer in the district and meets monthly. The DCC has two reporting lines. One is to the Advisory Board through the RCC and the other to the JLOS Technical Committee through the JLOS Secretariat. The DCCs report on a quarterly basis to the Technical Committee and monthly to their respective institutions. The Technical Committee reserves one meeting in every quarter to discuss reports of the DCCs. Regional implementation reviews complement sector secretariat feedback to the DCCs.

##

The Technical Committee comprises technical personnel from Access to Justice institutions at the level of head of departments. There is one representative from each of the A2J institutions, with one alternate designated by each institution. The following have one person each as a member of the Technical Committee in their own right: The Law Council; Administrator General; National Community Service Programme; Amnesty Commission; NGO Bureau; Directorate of Government Analytical Laboratory and Criminal Investigations Directorate of UPF. (Only one member from each institution shall attend at a time). Other representatives include:

1. The Senior Technical Advisor.
2. Advisors from the Sector Secretariat.
3. Chairperson and co-chairperson of JLOS Development Partners Technical Group
4. JLOS Desk officers at MoFPED, MoPS and OPM

The Technical Committee drives the A2J SDP V strategy document and shall decompose the Leadership Committee vision and the Steering Committee direction into immediate, medium- and long-term strategic objectives. The Committee also plays an oversight role and coordinates strategy. The Technical Committee is responsible for the planning, technical direction and guidance, support, and management of the programme. The Technical Committee facilitates, supervises, and supports the JLOS Secretariat in the implementation of the JLOS SDP V.

The functions of the committee are the following:

1. Drive the JLOS SDP V Strategy targets.
2. Monitor sector performance and delivery of results.
3. Provide strategic direction to the implementation of JLOS SDP V to ensure performance meets the standards by law and by the Leadership Committee
4. Link the Programme within the institutions, to the JLOS Steering and Leadership structures and to the Working groups and sub-national implementation structures.
5. Troubleshoot, report to and advise the Steering Committee on SDP V implementation.
6. Providing the primary link between individual institutions and the sub-programme.

The Steering Committee is the body responsible for policy formulation, coordination, fundraising, external accountability, and quality assurance of the Access to Justice (JLOS) sub-programme results to the people of Uganda.  The Committee consists of the following officials from JLOS institutions:

1. The Solicitor General (Chairperson)
2. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (Alternate Chairperson)
3. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Internal Affairs
4. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Local Government
5. Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development
6. Permanent Secretary/Secretary to the Treasury, Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
7. Permanent Secretary/Secretary, Judicial Service Commission
8. Secretary, Uganda Law Reform Commission
9. Secretary, Uganda Human Rights Commission
10. The Chief Registrar
11. Director Law Development Centre
12. Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
13. Inspector General of Police
14. Commissioner General of Prisons
15. Registrar General, Uganda Registration Services Bureau
16. Executive Director, National Identification & Registration Authority
17. Registrar, Tax Appeals Tribunal
18. Director, Citizenship, and Immigration Control
19. Secretary, Amnesty Commission
20. President, Uganda Law Society
21. Executive Director, CADER
22. Chairperson Technical Committee (Ex officio)
23. Senior Technical Advisor (Ex Officio)

The Steering Committee may co-opt any institution(s), individuals, Development Partners, or Non-State Actors as deemed necessary to their meetings. 

Mr. Francis Atoke, the Solicitor General is the current Chairperson of the Access to Justice Steering Committee.

##

This is the Committee comprised of all heads of institutions, who are ultimately accountable for the delivery of JLOS services in the country and is responsible for political leadership and guidance to the Sector.  It is responsible for the articulation of the JLOS Vision and Sector development policy. The Leadership Committee is comprised of the following officials:

1. Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA)
2. The Attorney General
3. Minister of Internal Affairs
4. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
5. Minister of Gender, Labour, and Social Development
6. Minister of Local Government
7. Minister of State for Internal Affairs
8. Minister of State for Justice/Deputy Attorney General
9. Director of Public Prosecutions
10. Chairperson of the Uganda Law Reform Commission
11. Chairperson of the Uganda Human Rights Commission
12. Chairperson of the Judicial Service Commission
13. Chairperson of the Uganda Registration Services Bureau
14. Chairperson CADER Governing Council
15. Chairperson LDC Management Committee
16. Chairperson Tax Appeals Tribunal
17. Chairperson Citizenship and Immigration Board
18. Chairperson of the NGO Bureau
19. Chairperson of the Board-Amnesty Commission
20. Chairperson National Identification and Registration Authority
21. Chairperson Steering Committee- (ex officio)
22. Chairperson Technical Committee- (ex officio)
23. Senior Technical Advisor- JLOS Secretariat – (ex officio)

The Leadership Committee may co-opt any institution(s), individuals, Development Partners, or Non-State Actors as deemed necessary to their meetings. The Leadership Committee may create Ad hoc or Standing committees to support its work. The Leadership Committee will determine its rules of procedure. The Leadership Committee meets a minimum of two times a year.

Hon. Nobert Mao, the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs is the current chairperson of the Access to Justice Leadership Committee.

##

Special Edition on SGBV (Published: June 2023)

Special Edition on Transitional Justice (Published: December 2020)

Special Edition on the JLOS Evolution (Published: June 2019)

Special Edition on SIP III (Published: December 2017)

Special edition on Civil and Business Registration (Published: 2012)

Special Edition on Public Order Management (Published: 2011)

##

For more information on the JLOS Bulletin, email the Editor on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

##

Assessment of JLOS Performance delivered by Mr. Nicolas Gonze on behalf of the JLOS Development Partners Group (DPG).

1. My Lord, it is again, the time of the year for us jointly to take stock of the performance of the Access to Justice Sub-programme.
2. It is my honour to deliver these assessments on behalf of the Access to Justice Development Partners Group. I would like to thank deeply and sincerely members of the group for the valuable contributions to the assessment, and their continued interest and dedication to the sub-programme.
3. My Lord, the methodology of our assessment has remained the same as in the past. Before providing a highlight of our detailed comments and assessments, I would like to provide some general comments.

General Comments

4. During the technical review on 25 November 2022, we had an in-depth and constructive discussions, and provided several recommendations on actions to improve the reporting.
5. Overall, we note that there is a marked improvement in the quality of reporting compared to previous years. For this, we would like to acknowledge and greatly appreciate the valuable contributions of individuals and institutions who invested time and energy in the drafting of the report.
6. I would also like to extend our appreciation to the Governance and Security Programme Secretariat for coordinating the drafting of the report, and for facilitating our cordial collaboration with Government.

 I now turn to the highlights of our assessment of the performance during the period under review.

My Lord, under Outcome 1 on “People centred service delivery system strengthened”.

7. We note that public trust in Access to Justice institutions is 9% above the target of 60%, which is commendable.
8. We observe the launch of construction of the JLOS House, which when completed, when completed will be emblematic of the sub-programme’s endeavours to create peaceful and well-functioning society. So congratulations for the launch of the construction of the JLOS House.
9. My Lord, although Judiciary is not part of this sub-programme, we would like to take this opportunity to recognise their efforts to improve the quality of state brief schemes to ensure that a person who cannot afford a private lawyer are represented effectively.
10. We note that institutions have built capacity on management of GBV cases, but a witness protection law would be crucial for more progress.
11. We positively note the UPF’s responses to the high prevalence of domestic violence including 7,000 SGBV investigations and training of trainers for handling of GBV cases and collecting evidence from crime scenes.
12. The amendments to the Succession Act were eventually passed.
13. My Lord, with conviction rates now over 70%, the Sub-programme is making significant progress. We recall a time when it was just slightly above 50%.
14. We observe that community service is important and shows good results. In the reporting period, the Ministry of Internal Affairs supervised almost 17,000 community service orders, which is a significant contribution to case backlog reduction, the community and rehabilitation of offenders.
15. However, as underlined by Ambassador Sadek in his speech, the DGF which has been supporting legal aid to more than 90,000 Ugandans is closing. It is not clear how the sub-programme will address this significant gap.
16. It is worrisome that prison congestion levels increased from 323% to 351%. There is a need for a solid analysis of the main reasons for the congestion and why the remand population keeps growing.
17. We observe with concerns that the proportion of magisterial areas accessing state funded legal aid is below 50%.

Overall, the assessment of Development Partners of Outcome 1 is “Satisfactory”.

My Lord, regarding Outcome 2 “JLOS Business Processes Reformed and Strengthened” 

18. We note that the targets for all (5) indicators were reported as met. These included case disposal rate of 55%, percentage of districts with one-stop front line service points at 83% and a conviction rate of 82% in corruption cases.
19. We note with interest the conduct of normal sessions in the High Court during which 1,964 cases were concluded. We heard that regular hearing of criminal cases was being piloted at the high court leading to significant reduction in backlog. This is an issue we previously advocated for and would be pleased to hear more about. 
20. Other commendable achievements reported include:
    1. DPP consistently surpassing its quarterly targets of prosecutorial decisions;
    2. The country wide roll-out of small claims procedure, with a high number of and disputes resolved at the pre-trial stage;
    3. Broadly, a sizable number of cases were resolved through mediation with a success of 57%.
    4. Increased percentage of convicted prisoners from 46.5% to 49% during the period under review;
21. My Lord, 206,000 cases, which accounted for 55% of the total caseload were disposed during the period under review. With the highest disposal rate of 71%, we would like to commend the efforts of lower courts in dispensing justice.
22. In addition, we note further achievements including:

• The full adherence by UPS to production warrants;
• 171 cases won by the AG which saved GoU shs 424billion;
• DPP’s sanctioning of 56% of land cases and prosecution of 75% of cases against a target of 70%

23. Furthermore, the target for level of automation of case management systems was exceeded and the target of JLOS Institutions with a functional M&E System was also achieved.
24. However, we are concerned about the 11 months average length of stay on remand. We are also concerned that female suspects spend about 4 months more time on remand than male suspects.
25. Also concerning is the worsening of average time taken to dispose cases from approximately 870 days in the previous reporting period to 930 days during the period under review.
26. In addition, we note that budget cuts adversely affected operations of the DPP and late releases in quarter 1 further jeopardized their performance. UPF faced a similar funding challenge.
27. My Lord, it is also worrying that the monthly average prison population now stands at 70,000 inmates, an increase of 0.7% from the previous reporting period.
28. Finally, we analysed the case disposal and clearance rates at the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal and would like to respectfully urge for an internal reflection on how best to improve on the case disposal and clearance rates at these courts.

In view of the detailed comments above, the assessment of the performance under Outcome 2 is “Satisfactory”.

My Lord, regarding Outcome 3 on “Compliance with the Uganda Bill of Rights Strengthened”

29. We note the launch of the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights in October 2021 which is a significant achievement.
30. In addition, we note the inspection of about 590 detention facilities across 9 regional offices by Uganda Human Rights Commission. In future, inclusion of the methodology of these inspections and how involved other mandated actors notably Justices of Peace are in inspecting places of detention would enrich the reporting.
31. We note the outstanding performance of the Anti-Corruption Court Division (ACD) with a case clearance rate of 103%, a disposal rate of 51% - up from 48.5% registered in the previous reporting period, and, a conviction rate of 88%.
32. My Lord, we note an interesting practice at the ACD, which limits the number of mentions and adjournments to only 3, after which active prosecution must start to avoid dismissal of a case. The practice can be instrumental in addressing case backlog, lengthy trial processes, unnecessary arrests or initiation of prosecution before investigations are complete.
33. We note that except the indicator on increased capacity of policy makers and planners on HRBA, (5) out of the (6) performance indicators were not met. The indicators not achieved were: Proportion of human rights recommendations implemented, disposal rate of Human Rights cases, DPP’s conviction rate of corruption cases, and, proportion of citizens aware of the provisions of the bill of rights. 
34. Our view is that the finalisation of the National Action Plan on Human Rights has stagnated over the last couple of years.
35. Also of concern, the inspection by UHRC revealed inadequate staffing at most police facilities coupled with a limited number of female police officers deployed at various police stations, and in particular in refugee hosting districts.
36. We note with regret the reporting of continued detention of suspects beyond the 48 hours as stipulated in the Constitution. This is an issue we have consistently raised for several years and even before the COVID-19 pandemic and we encourage the government to take concrete action to address it.
37. Regrettably, case clearance by UHRC was only 20% against a target of 76% and the proportion of decisions against JLOS institutions to total cases concluded by UHRC is unlikely to have been achieved.
38. As highlighted by Ambassador Sadek in his intervention, torture and denial of personal liberty remain the most reported human rights violation over the years and the report states that the two topmost implicated institutions are UPF and UPDF.
39. Another concern is the fact that the majority of 80% of trainees were men. The explanation provided in the report for this was neither clear nor convincing. There should be concerted effort to increase participation of women in trainings.
40. Finally, we note lack of progress in the development of a law to provide for recovery of the proceeds of crime.

In light of these comments, the overall assessment of Development Partners of Outcome 3 was that limited progress was achieved.

41. Therefore, in summary, 2 out of the 3 Outcomes were assessed as “Satisfactory” and 1 assessed as “Limited” progress.
42. My Lord, these were the observations and assessment of the members of the Access to Justice Development Partners Group.

Thank you for your kind attention.

##

His Lordship the Honourable Chief Justice

Honourable Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

Honourable Minister of Internal Affairs

Honourable Minister of Local Government

Honourable Attorney General

Honourable Minister of State for Internal Affairs

Honourable Justices and Judges of the Courts of Judicature

Director of Public Prosecutions

Excellencies Ambassadors and Heads of Diplomatic Missions present

Honourable Members of Parliament

Chairpersons of Constitutional Commissions

Solicitor General

Permanent Secretary – Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Permanent Secretaries of Ministries present and Secretaries of Commissions present

Inspector General of Police

Commissioner General of Prisons

Representatives of Development Partners

Representatives of Civil Society

Ladies and Gentlemen

I am honoured to deliver these remarks on behalf of the Access to Justice Development Partners Group.

My Lord, today’s review is yet another valuable opportunity for us to jointly reflect on the performance of the Access to Justice Sub-programme in its mission to empower people, build trust and uphold rights.

When I took up my tour of duty recently, I was briefed on the good collaboration between the Access to Justice Development Partners Group and the Government, and its institutions over the years. Therefore, I convey our sincere gratefulness for the opportunity afforded to us to once again engage constructively.

My Lord, there were several significant achievements registered during the period under review and I now would like to highlight a few.

Building on progress in past years, there is now a one-stop frontline service point in 83% of the districts which is contributing to increased access to justice and satisfaction by the population.

In terms of infrastructure, the development partners would also like to laud the start of the construction of the JLOS house which will be a landmark building in Kampala, and which will lead to closer collaboration amongst the Access to Justice Sub-programme actors and ultimately improved service delivery to citizens.   

We also positively note an increased percentage in case disposal rates, underpinned by disposal of a substantial number of cases especially in lower courts, and in the Anti-Corruption Court Division. Complementing these achievements was high conviction rates that demonstrated increased efficiency and competences at various phases of the criminal justice chain.

In addition, my Lord, we note the increased strengthening of business registries and the accelerated pace of automation of business processes within the Access to Justice Sub-programme institutions. The ability of the different systems to ‘speak’ and connect to each other will result in improved efficiency in the delivery of justice, law and order services thereby building more trust and confidence of users.

The report also highlights a significant drop in crime rates. We hope that this positive trend will continue.

I would like to turn now to some areas which deserve further discussions and efforts.

Although there are initiatives, the absence of a nationally funded legal aid scheme remains a significant impediment to access to justice, in particular for the poor and vulnerable persons. With the end of the Democratic Governance Facility that was providing legal aid to some 90,000 Ugandans, we would like to reiterate our previous calls for a nationally funded legal aid scheme to support access to justice and promote the right to a fair hearing enshrined in the Constitution.

As development partners, we would like to express our continued commitment to this important aspect of access to justice. In this regard, we would also like to stress the importance of the National Legal Aid Bill which we hope will be enacted soon. 

My Lord, the annual report reveals that suspects spend a considerable period of time on remand, and that congestion in prisons and remand homes is acute – a situation that has been worsening in successive years. A concerted action and reforms are needed to address these challenges.

My Lord, distinguished guests, case backlog remains a significant issue. Although some gains are noted, the problem persists thereby eroding trust and impeding access to justice, law and order services. In particular, the Development Partners would like to renew their call for an expeditious disposal of backlogged cases, in particular a speedy trial of cases of sexual and gender-based violence and juvenile cases.   

My Lord, I would like to make some observations on Outcome 3 which provides account of interventions undertaken to strengthen compliance with the bill of rights and tackle corruption within the Sub-programme institutions.

Progress on Outcome 3 has historically been the most mixed and this is the same for the period under review.

My Lord, as stated in the report, and I quote “Torture consistently remains the most reported human rights violation over the years, although with a declining numerical count compared to the baseline year 2016/17”[1]. The second most reported violation is denial of personal liberty. In this regard, we would like to call for perpetrators of human rights violations including those related to the November 2020 events to be held to account and ensure justice for victims. In addition, we would like to emphasise the urgency for finalisation and implementation of the National Action Plan on Human Rights, a process that in our view, has stalled.     

We also note with concern reports about a resurgence of irregular arrests. We hope that implementation of the recent declaration of Honourable Minister of Internal Affairs to end arrests before investigations are complete will curb violations of the rights of suspects.

My Lord, and as I concluded, we would like to reiterate that the effective and close collaboration between the Access to Justice Sub-programme and the Administration of Justice Programme is essential. The participation of the leadership of both programmes in this review show your commitment to this collaboration. 

With these remarks, I wish you fruitful deliberations during the course of the review.

Thank you for your kind attention!

##

Speech delivered at the 27th Annual JLOS Review on 6th December 2022 at Speke Resort Munyonyo, Kampala

[1] Access to Justice Sub-programme Annual Report 2021/2022, P.110

The Honourable Chief Justice of Uganda

Honourable Ministers

The Honourable Principal Judge

My Lords, Justices, and Judges of the Courts of Judicature

The Head of the European Union Delegation in Uganda and Chairperson of the Access to Justice Sub-Programme Development Partners’ Group

Your Excellencies, Heads of Diplomatic Missions to Uganda

Honourable Members of Parliament

Heads of Access to Justice Institutions

Members of the Steering and Technical Committees

Members of the District Chain Linked Committees

Distinguished invited guests in your respective capacities

Ladies and Gentlemen

It is my honour and privilege to welcome you all to this 27^th edition of the Annual Access to Justice, Government of Uganda - Development Partners’ Review.

This year’s review is being held against a backdrop of a challenging year. The aftermath of the COVID 19 pandemic has globally been a challenging phenomenon – socially, economically, and politically. More specifically, the pandemic created unprecedented demands on the access to justice community but also tested the resilience and resolve of our coordination and collaborative model. I’m proud to note that in the face of such challenges, our decades-old coordination structures and mechanisms remained firm and intact.

Our review today is being held under the theme: “Empowering the People, Building Trust, Upholding Rights”. This theme is aligned to the National Vision 2040 that seeks to consolidate the principles of good governance including constitutional democracy, protection of human rights, the rule of law, Government effectiveness and citizen’s participation in development processes and peace and security among others. Indeed, Access to Justice Sub-Programme initiatives have been directed towards these results and the performance report that we will discuss today, will highlight the achievements made so far and the challenges ahead.

The evolving environment we operate is dynamic and there are high expectations from the public from access to justice service providers and duty bearers

The evolving environment we operate is dynamic and there are high expectations from the public from access to justice service providers and duty bearers. Cognizant of the fact that access to justice is a core pillar of our nation’s social economic transformation, we during the reporting year (2021/22) invested effort and resources in deconcentrating JLOS service delivery by reducing the distance people traverse in search of justice services; simplifying and streamlining business processes; improving customer experience and “justice journeys” at JLOS service points; empowering duty bearers in our institutions; tackling case management bottlenecks; and leveraging information and communication technologies (ICTs) to create new service delivery realities of efficiency and effectiveness.

However, challenges still abound. We need to find solutions to the ever-growing prison congestion; staffing gaps in frontline access to justice institutions; aspects of human rights violations; and the scarce financial resources allocated to the sub-programme – just to mention a few.

It's my hope that today, we shall have a meaningful and engaging discussion on the broad spectrum of all these issues that have direct and indirect impact on access to justice service delivery in our country.

I wish to welcome our friends from other programmes to this review. We are partners and comrades in this cause, and we look forward to renewed and strengthened inter-programme partnerships going forward.

I wish to welcome and thank our Development Partners for their unrelenting support over the years. We sincerely appreciate your unwavering commitment to the access to justice sub-programme going back twenty (20) years from the formative years of the Sector-wide approach.

Once again, thank you all for honouring our invitation and I look forward to your active participation in this Review.

##

Speech delivered at the 27th Annual JLOS Review on 6th December 2022 at Speke Resort Munyonyo, Kampala