As Uganda marked its Independence Day on October 9, PAUL MUKIIBI, a renowned legal researcher, bagged a significant milestone of Doctor of Laws (LLD) at the University of Western Cape in South Africa.
With his doctoral research focused on ICT-based adjudication in Uganda, Mukiibi hopes to turn this milestone to spearhead the use of technology to promote the right to a fair hearing, writes David Lumu.
The completion of a doctoral study on technology-based adjudication in Uganda should not be mistaken for proof that the country’s legal profession is ready to embrace technology-driven justice delivery, Dr Mukiibi warns.
Dr Mukiibi’s research titles: An Evaluation of the Information Communication Technology (ICT) Based Adjudication Process in Civil Proceedings in Uganda, examined whether the use of technology in civil proceedings adequately protects the right to a fair hearing, a question that acquired fresh urgency as courts expanded electronic procedures during and after the Covid-19 pandemic.
“The existence of electronic platforms does not mean that the profession is ready to use them,” he says.
“Those platforms must work reliably without putting a litigant’s right to a fair hearing at risk.”
He notes that technology can save time, reduce litigation costs and improve access to courts, but stresses that parties must still receive proper notice, participate effectively and have a fair opportunity to present their cases.
The research comes against the backdrop of the Judicature (Electronic Filing, Service and Virtual Proceedings) Rules, 2025, Statutory Instrument No. 21 of 2025, which provide the legal framework for electronic filing, service and virtual proceedings.
The Judiciary has also been piloting the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) and virtual hearings. Dr Mukiibi, who also heads the department of Law Reporting, Research and Law Reform at the Law Development Centre (LDC) says judges, magistrates, advocates and court staff must be able to use these procedures competently.
He adds that the law must provide clear remedies where their use prejudices a party’s right to be heard. Asked where the biggest gap lies between the current reality of ICT adoption in Ugandan courts and the digital justice system he envisions, he points to the persistence of paper in electronic processes.
“ECCMIS can improve case management, but much of that benefit is lost when an electronic process still depends on paper,” he says.
“Documents filed online may have to be downloaded for manual signing or processing, creating avoidable work. Unreliable connectivity, limited equipment, uneven training and the difficulties faced by unrepresented litigants further affect how well the system works.”
He also says the Civil Procedure Act and the Evidence Act still need to be harmonised with digital practice. Courts, he adds, need reliable procedures for dealing with failed electronic service, inaccessible records and interruptions that prevent a party from being heard.
“I would like to see cases move from filing and service through hearings, judgment and execution without unnecessary movement between paper and electronic records,” Dr Mukiibi says.
That, he explains, requires changes in court administration, not simply better software, and clear limits on how judicial discretion is exercised. However, he cautions that backlog will not disappear merely because of digitization.
“If the underlying procedures are slow, a computerised version may be just as slow,” he says.
NEED FOR BENCHMARKING
During his research, he examined Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa and Nigeria. He found useful lessons in phased implementation, electronic signatures, integrated case management and selecting proceedings suitable for remote hearing.
Those approaches, he says, must be adapted to Uganda’s own court resources and the needs of litigants, not copied without considering local conditions. Dr Mukiibi also has a message for judicial officers who resist technology or are approaching retirement.
He says every serving judicial officer needs to be competent in the procedures used by their court. He suggests that reluctance may reflect inadequate training, unreliable equipment or concerns that technology will disrupt proceedings.
He calls for practical demonstrations, mentoring and technical support during proceedings, with training covering the conduct of virtual hearings, including witness identification, the handling of objections and appropriate responses to technical interruptions.
For the next generation of lawyers, magistrates and judges, he says knowledge of substantive law, procedure, evidence, drafting and advocacy remains indispensable.
At university level, he recommends that law programmes incorporate course units such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the Law, E-Commerce Law, Cyber Law and other subjects dealing with emerging technologies.
Thereafter, LDC and continuing professional development programmes can then build on that foundation through practical training in electronic court procedures, including situations in which their use may compromise the right to a fair hearing.
On data privacy, digital literacy and equitable access, Dr Mukiibi warns that all is not rosy about electronic proceedings and they can make it harder for some people to access the courts.
“A litigant may miss a notice sent electronically, a witness may lose a connection while giving evidence, or a party may be unable to consult an advocate privately during a virtual hearing. Persons with disabilities face further barriers unless hearings, documents and communication systems are accessible,” he says.
Lastly, Dr Mukiibi says he intends to use the expertise to strengthen legal training and inform law reform. He supports introducing ICT-based adjudication as a subject or practical training component at LDC, subject to the required institutional and curriculum approvals.
He says students should gain practical experience in electronic filing and service, case tracking through ECCMIS, electronic signatures, managing digital court records and presenting or challenging electronic evidence, as well as virtual advocacy.
He adds that the department is going to pay closer attention in law reporting to decisions involving electronic service, virtual hearings and electronic evidence, and will consult the judiciary, Uganda Law Society (ULS), universities and practitioners about difficulties they encounter in practice.
To bar course students seeking to tap into his research, he advises reading the thesis alongside prescribed materials, especially when preparing for civil procedure, legal drafting and advocacy.
He encourages them to practise applying the law to facts, identify procedural issues in problems involving electronic filing, service or virtual hearings, and verify cases and statutory provisions against original sources.
“That habit, together with regular drafting and advocacy practice, will improve the quality of their legal analysis,” Dr Mukiibi says.