There is an argument that appointing mission-based or temporary judges under Article 142 of the Constitution is the most effective way of addressing case backlog.
In summary, Article 142 provides that the Chief Justice may advise the Judicial Service Commission (JSC) of the necessity for the appointment of persons eligible to be judges temporarily to act in the capacity of Judge of the High Court or Justice of the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court on a demonstrable need basis.
On the recommendation of the JSC, the President may make such appointments, including persons who have attained retirement age for a specified period or until the appointment is revoked.
Undoubtedly, the current state of 450,124 case load as the time of release of the 2024/2025 Judiciary Report demonstrates the need for extraordinary interventions. Under the mission-based / temporary Judges model, appointments are made for a fixed and limited tenure-typically two or three years.
Proponents contend that this approach is cost-effective, since temporary judges do not create long-term financial obligations such as pensions or retirement benefits. It is also argued that seasoned advocates from private practice would be well-suited for these roles and could return to practice once their temporary appointments lapse.
Pros of temporary (mission-based) judges
Cost efficiency: No long-term employment or pension liabilities for the Judiciary.
Flexibility: Judges can be appointed specifically for backlog-clearing missions and released once the task is done.
Expertise infusion: Experienced advocates bring fresh perspectives and specialised knowledge into the Judiciary.
Cons of temporary judges
Collegiality concerns: After two or three years on the bench, these temporary judges inevitably develop close collegial ties with permanent judges.
Perceptions of bias: On returning to legal practice, their continued interaction with former judicial colleagues may create discomfort, negative perceptions, or suspicions of preferential treatment.
Risk to public trust: Litigants and opposing counsel may question the fairness of proceedings when a former temporary Judge appears before Judges they recently worked alongside.
Institutional discontinuity: Temporary appointments do not build long-term judicial capacity within the system.
Given these concerns, a more sustainable approach to addressing case backlog would be to strengthen the existing judicial structure. I would advocate for increasing the pecuniary jurisdiction of Chief Magistrates to Shs100 million and raising that of Grade One Magistrates to Shs50 million-essentially restoring their jurisdictions to their original value at the time the current ceilings were set.
Alongside this, appointing thirty additional Chief Magistrates and deploying them on dedicated backlog-reduction missions for two to three years, before redeploying them across the country, would have long-term benefits.
This approach creates more permanent jobs, expands judicial capacity nationwide, and brings justice closer to the people.
It could also be complemented by drawing on the experience of retired judges and justices to reinforce efforts at both the High Court, Court of Appeal levels. Unlike 10 years ago, there are a number of them. The majority retired at 65 years.
Together, these measures would address backlog while strengthening the Judiciary, enhancing public trust and the institutional resilience of the Judiciary.
Mr Alex Rezida is a partner at Nangwala, Rezida and Co. Advocates