The Gulu High Court Circuit is grappling with a growing backlog of cases, with judicial leaders now turning to Alternative Justice Systems (AJS) as a practical solution to ease pressure on courts and deliver faster, community-centered justice.
Speaking during a judiciary engagement in Gulu, the Principal Judge, Jane Frances Abodo, acknowledged the mounting case backlog and emphasized the urgent need to move beyond policy discussions into real implementation of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
“Today’s meeting is a direct follow-up on the rollout of AJS. It is our opportunity to move from policy and pronouncement to practical implementation,” she said.
According to the Resident Judge of Gulu, Philip Odoki, the High Court circuit is currently handling an overwhelming caseload of about 1,972 cases, with only two judges and one magistrate available to handle them.
“It is a task which is quite huge-pointing to systemic challenges that have long hindered access to justice, including distance to courts, complex legal procedures, and the cost of legal representation,” said Justice Odoki.
The backlog reflects a broader structural issue within Uganda’s justice system, where the formal court process has increasingly become congested due to its “one-door approach,” requiring nearly all disputes to pass through the judiciary.
Justice Odoki explained that before the introduction of formal courts, African societies relied on community-based systems of justice that were accessible, fast, and focused on restoring relationships.
Also read: Suspects in the Apaa land conflict to be tried in a court martial
“You had a multi-door approach to justice delivery and if you had a dispute, you would go to an elder, a family head, or a traditional chief, and it would be resolved quickly,” he said.
However, the introduction of the formal, adversarial legal system shifted dispute resolution to a centralised court structure, creating bottlenecks that persist today.
Justice Odoki noted that despite this shift, the majority of Ugandans still rely on informal systems.
“More than 90 percent of people are still using traditional systems, while only about 10 percent use the formal courts,” he said.
This disconnect, he added, has resulted in two parallel justice systems that have historically operated without coordination.
The introduction of AJS seeks to bridge this gap by allowing the formal judiciary to recognize and work alongside traditional dispute resolution mechanisms.
Justice Abodo stressed that AJS is not intended to replace formal courts but to complement them.
“These systems are supposed to work alongside the formal justice system as culturally rooted, community-based approaches that people are familiar with,” she said.
She noted that AJS is particularly suitable for resolving common disputes such as land conflicts, family disagreements, inheritance issues, and minor civil matters – cases that dominate the court docket in regions like Acholi.
“These mechanisms emphasize reconciliation, restoration of relationships, and social harmony,” she added.
Importantly, she clarified that serious criminal offenses, including murder, rape, defilement, and land fraud, will remain under the formal court system.
The push for AJS is grounded in Uganda’s Constitution, which under Article 126 encourages reconciliation and substantive justice without undue regard to technicalities.
“Embracing AJS is not optional and it is a constitutional mandate,” Justice Abodo said.
The Executive Director of the Judicial Training Institute, Andrew Khaukha, said research conducted following a national case census revealed the urgent need to integrate informal justice mechanisms into the formal system.
“One of the recommendations was to explore mechanisms that connect the formal justice system to the informal systems people are already using,” he said.
Khaukha noted that while AJS has long existed in communities, it has largely operated outside the formal legal framework, limiting its impact on reducing case backlog.
He pointed out that current statistics show that a significant portion of disputes never reach formal courts, highlighting the potential of AJS to absorb cases before they contribute to the backlog.
“We are here to ask what we need to learn and do before fully committing to this system,” Khaukha said.
To operationalise AJS, the judiciary has begun developing clear structures and procedures to guide implementation.
Justice Abodo said judicial officers, including registrars and magistrates, will now play a key role in identifying suitable cases and referring them to community-based mediators such as clan leaders, elders, and religious figures.
“We have developed standard referral forms and tracking systems to ensure transparency and accountability,” she said.
She added that participation in AJS must be voluntary, and parties retain the right to return to court if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.
Justice Odoki emphasized the need to establish clear guidelines on which cases qualify for AJS and how decisions made through the system can be recognized by formal courts.
“We must develop a doctrine of interaction and how the informal system speaks to the formal system and vice versa,” he said.
He proposed mechanisms for courts to recognize and enforce decisions made by AJS practitioners, similar to arbitration rulings, while also allowing for judicial review in cases where constitutional standards are not met.
To support implementation, the judiciary plans to establish regional committees to oversee AJS rollout, document outcomes, and share best practices.
“We want to ensure that we are moving in tandem and learning from each other,” Justice Odoki said.
In addition, capacity building is also a key component, with ongoing training for judicial officers and community leaders to ensure the system operates effectively and respects human rights.
Despite optimism around AJS, stakeholders acknowledged that challenges remain, including the need for greater public awareness, safeguarding vulnerable groups, and ensuring consistency across different cultural practices.
Justice Abodo stressed that safeguards must be in place to protect women, children, and other vulnerable individuals.
“There must be voluntariness, and there must be protection of rights and any process that violates the Constitution cannot be accepted,” she said.
As the judiciary intensifies efforts to implement AJS, leaders say the ultimate goal is to deliver timely, fair, and accessible justice.
“This is a new day and if we get this right, we will not only reduce the case backlog but also restore trust in the justice system,” Justice Odoki said.
For communities in northern Uganda, where traditional systems remain deeply rooted, the integration of AJS could mark a turning point in bridging the gap between formal law and lived realities bringing justice closer to the people while easing the burden on the courts.
Discover more from tndNews, Uganda
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.