Why I withdrew from the race to represent Uganda Law Society on Judicial Service Commission

In late 2024, I was deeply honoured to be nominated by my peers in the Uganda Law Society (ULS) to represent them on the Judicial Service Commission (JSC), a body whose constitutional mandate is to safeguard the independence and integrity of our judiciary.

I accepted the nomination with a sense of duty and optimism, believing that, together, we could contribute to meaningful judicial reform and uphold the rule of law. However, recent developments have caused me to fundamentally rethink my role in this struggle.

Shortly after the High court halted the election of ULS representatives to the JSC, the commission moved swiftly to promulgate new regulations, the Judicial Service Commission Regulations, 2025 (2025 No. 4), gazetted on January 21, 2025.

These regulations were passed without any meaningful consultation of key stakeholders, including the ULS itself. This exclusion, in my view, is emblematic of a broader trend: the narrowing of space for independent voices and the undermining of constitutional safeguards in the appointment of judicial officers.

The new regulations establish a ‘search and selection committee’ for judicial appointments comprising five members. These are the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of the JSC (both presidential appointees), the Attorney General (an ex-officio member and cabinet minister, also appointed by the President), a representative of the judiciary, and a fifth member whose appointment process remains opaque but is likely subject to the influence of the JSC Chairperson.

With a quorum set at just two, this structure dangerously centralizes power in the hands of a few, most of whom are directly or indirectly beholden to the executive. This is not just a technical or procedural concern.

Article 146 of the Constitution of Uganda was crafted to ensure that the JSC is a broadly representative body, including voices from the ULS, the Public Service Commission, the judiciary, and lay members.

This diversity is essential for protecting the independence and legitimacy of our courts. By sidelining the ULS and other key stakeholders, and by vesting so much power in presidential appointees, these regulations threaten to erode the very foundation of our judicial system.

Appointments made through such a process are at risk of being perceived as partisan or lacking independence. The public’s confidence in the judiciary and, by extension, the rule of law, depends on transparent, accountable, and constitutionally- sound procedures.

When these tenets are compromised, so too is the legitimacy of the entire justice system. It is in this context that I have decided to withdraw from the campaigns for the ULS seat on the JSC.

Sometimes, when the river is dammed, it’s wiser to speak from the banks than to struggle against the current. Perhaps my voice will carry further from outside the JSC than within its walls.

This is not a withdrawal from the cause of judicial reform, but a recognition that, under current circumstances, my meaningful representation of the ULS on the JSC is will not be effective.

I remain committed to advocating for an independent, transparent and accountable judiciary; one that truly serves the people of Uganda. I urge those in positions of authority to remember that the legitimacy of our institutions depends not on the power they wield, but on the trust they inspire.

The writer is an advocate and a member of the Uganda Law Society.