Uganda: Judicial Appointments and Promotions

The Parliament watch website of April 2025, published a concern by law makers about what they described as discriminatory promotion practices within Uganda’s judiciary where they claimed that competent and long – serving judges are being overlooked in favour of newer, politically connected appointees.

I hazard to say that this concern is not uncommon in many countries, though it may vary in degree. Even in the United States, the federal judiciary has been reshaped by President Trump’s appointment of a majority republican appointees who are expected to moot for his party’s agenda.

Judicial appointments and promotions have always had some political colour to them. They are a caricature of the popular Netflix series – “the game of thrones” – a metaphor now used more broadly to refer to any kind of political maneuvering or scheming needed to gain power or influence- often wielded from the shadows.

The appointing authority of judges in Uganda is the President who happens to be the grundnorm of politics itself. Another assembly of politicians, the Parliament, approves their appointment. So Judges are by default, political appointees even if their recruitment by the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) is steeped in technical finesse.

Despite the apparent political bondage, most democracies routinely subject exercise of judicial power to the constitution and in the case of Uganda, to the additional values, norms and aspirations

of the people. (See Article 126 of the Constitution).

So if there are judges who exercise judicial power in the interest of the appointing authority, rather than the people, then we should ultimately blame this on weak enforcement of the law.

To that extent Parliament should take some stick for any discriminatory appointments and promotions in the judiciary because it has the opportunity to stop the appointments in the first place.

The distinguished legislator, Hon. Abdu Katuntu, Bugweri County MP is reported to have questioned the accelerated appointment of Hon. Justice Douglas Singiza, the newly appointed chairman of the JSC against the back drop of more senior Judges who were not considered for the position. We know that the said questioning did not stop the wheels of the political discourse from turning.

The problem with fronting political considerations in judicial appointments and promotions is that it erodes public trust and confidence in the legal system faster than it builds it. With a population smitten by the information age, this jaundiced perception about judicial promotions is now readily disseminated and is easily believed by many.

We must therefore be intentional as a country, in ensuring that justice in the eyes of right thinking members of the public, is not only done but is also seen to be done in all judicial appointments and promotions.

It is generally accepted that career stagnation in any place of work can be fatalist. It does not only

reduce job satisfaction and motivation, increase stress and burn out but it also removes hope – the

only fire of all human endeavor. That’s why I believe that job stagnation in the judiciary is more

dangerous than it is in other places because it negatively impacts the delivery of justice, whose

failure can cause anarchy.

A just and favourable condition of work must ensure equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his or her employment to an appropriate higher level subject to no considerations, other than those of seniority and competence. This legal requirement is enunciated

in Article 7 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights which Uganda ratified on the 21st January, 1987.

I would go further to argue that the right to career growth for any judicial officer, is embedded in the constitutional right to practice their profession under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions provided under Article 40 of the Constitution. This right should therefore be given or denied on the basis of the core technical skills involved in dispensing justice under the principles of independence, propriety, integrity, impartiality, equality, competence and diligence, as codified in the Judicial Service Commission Regulations 2025.

It is sometimes tempting to dismiss seniority as overrated in this dot.com era. That we should instead focus more on a competency – based staffing model for the judiciary is common speak. I hold

no grudge against newer, politically connected appointees if they are competent and can dispense

justice which can be seen.

My point however is that the legal profession is anchored on knowledge of the law, not politics. Moreover legal knowledge is not an App which you can just download and then gain instant mastery. It is acquired through patient and dedicated study and practice. But even then, the law keeps on evolving, so it must reside in a mental faculty which is learnt, but keeps learning and unlearning. To those who subscribe to the practice of sidelining competent, long- serving judicial officers in judicial promotions, I say to them that experience is still the greatest teacher!

Fred Muwema is a Managing Partner at Muwema & Co. Advocates