The Source is Wiki - Come on fellow Ugandans, surely you can add more to this one. You know anyone can edit on Wikipedia articles as long as you register. Given his position, I am rather surprised that no Ugandan has bothered to edit this and fill it with more info about this gentleman. However, scroll to the end and there is one article from Uganda which talks about him. ----------------------- Steven Kavuma From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Steven Kavuma is a Ugandan judge. He currently serves as the Acting Chief Justice of Uganda, pending the appointment of a substantive Chief Justice by the President of Uganda.[1] By the nature of his position, he is a Justice of the Supreme Court of Uganda.[2] See also[edit] Judiciary of Uganda References[edit] Jump up ^ Justice Steven Kavuma Is Acting Chief Justice Jump up ^ The Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court of Uganda External links[edit] Uganda Law Society Contest Kavuma’s New Post Flag of UgandaJustice icon This Ugandan law-related biographical article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Kavuma ---------------------------------- Uganda Law Society contest Kavuma’s new post logo By Joyce Namutebi Uganda Law Society has contested the idea of Justice Steven Kavuma acting as Chief Justice. The lawyers’ body instead asked President Yoweri Museveni to appoint a Chief Justice and the deputy from among the names already forwarded to him by the Judicial Service Commission. Addressing a press conference at their offices on Acacia Avenue in Kampala, the lawyers’ president, Ruth Sebatindira, said they are aware of a June 25 internal memo, which makes Kavuma the acting Chief Justice. However, Kavuma has also been the acting deputy Chief Justice. “The clear implication is that the same person is acting as head of two appellate courts; one of which is an appellate court for matters emanating from the other. As the legal voice of the nation, the Uganda Law Society views this state of affairs as contravening Article 142(2) of the Constitution,” Sebatindira said. She was flanked by the law society secretary, Nicholas Opiyo and other officials. Justice Benjamin Odoki’s term and tenure as a judicial officer and Chief Justice has ended. Sebatindira noted that under Article 133 of the Constitution, where the office of the Chief Justice is vacant or for some reason he cannot perform the functions of the office, and until a substantive appointment is made (as is the present situation), those functions can only be performed by a deputy Chief Justice. She also cited Article 136 (2) of the Constitution, which requires that where the office of the deputy Chief Justice is vacant or the holder is acting, those functions (of deputy Chief Justice) shall be performed by a Justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeal designated by the President after consultation with the Chief Justice or the person acting. “We contend, therefore, that where there is no substantive deputy Chief Justice to act as Chief Justice, a person holding the office of the acting deputy Chief Justice cannot at the same time be an acting Chief Justice, where there is no substantive Chief Justice, Sebatindira said. Sebatindira further explained that the current deputy Chief Justice is holding the office in an acting capacity and as such cannot also act as Chief Justice. Doing so, she observed, “would be contrary to Article 133(2) of the Constitution.” Sebatindira also stated that a retired Chief Justice cannot be appointed to act in the same office. This, she argues, is because the choice of who qualifies for appointment as Chief Justice is limited to a Justice of the Supreme Court, a Justice of Appeal or a Principal Judge. Sebatindira pointed out that the retirement of the Chief Justice and deputy were foreseen events and that all processes for a smooth transition should have been undertaken in a timely manner to avoid “the current but undesirable situation of a leadership vacuum at the Judiciary.” The law society boss also stated that the leadership vacuum in the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is precarious to the administration of criminal justice. The former DPP, Richard Buteera, was appointed Justice of Court of Appeal. “Owing to the absence of a substantive DPP, specific functions assigned only to his office under the law cannot be performed. This worsens the already huge backlog of criminal cases, congestion in Police cells and prisons, leading to derogation from due process and abuse of human rights,” she said. newvision.co.ug/mobile/Detail.aspx?NewsID=644689&CatID=1
Posted on: Fri, 09 Jan 2015 00:54:46 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015