*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Skillet
Just for fun (and while I have a faster internet connection at the moment) here is a picture of the largest skillet I have ever seen in my life. And those meats cooked therein where delicacies. Amazing all the way around.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Posters
Here are the anti-corruption poster pictures. Sorry for the glare, but these are pictures taken in haste. Still very revealing.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Monday, 19 October 2009
Constitutional Conundrum
I had a very interesting discussion late last week with one of the judges here in the Commercial Court. Justice Kiryabwire and I were speaking about a decision before the Ugandan Constitutional Court and about how the decision should go. His encouragement to me was to get outside of my cultural mindset in looking at the issue, which is what I had been trying to do, and consider the issue from the Ugandan perspective. On that, he was just plain right.
While we were speaking, Justice Kiryabwire began speaking of how the Constitution needed to be dynamic and a living document, adaptable with each generation. Many of you lawyers or law students or Constitutional scholars, or just interested citizens, will recognize this language as buzz words in debates over the interpretation of our own Constitution. And regardless of which side of the fence you fall, it is interesting to hear from another country with a much different history and circumstances how they view their constitutional structure and purpose. Then the kicker came. Justice Kiryabwire went to an article in their constitution that codifies the "living/dynamic" nature of the document.
Article 126, titled Exercise of Judicial Power, says the following:
(1) Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people. (http://www.ugandaonlinelawlibrary.com/files/constitution/constitution_1995.pdf)
This falls under Chapter Eight of their constitution which deals with the Judiciary and Administration of justice.
Another interesting fact that helps understand this better is that in 1962 when Uganda gained independence, they formed a Constitution. Then in 1966 they tore up that Constitution and wrote a new one. The same thing happened in 1969. Then in 1995, which is the last constitution established and is the one ruling today, they tore up the 1969 constitution. It is like starting with a clean slate of sorts every time. But what that does, especially with such a relative short history of independence, is preclude even the possibility of attempting an "originalist" structure of interpretation. For example, they cannot look back 250 years ago and debate over what founding fathers meant over specific language and, for example, whether the intent was for only Congress to institute war or whether the power was left to the President as well.
We cannot say that we as the United States of America have not adapted our views over the years to appropriately change our view of the Constitution, either. If we had not, we would still own slaves and women would not be voting. So there are at least some elements of the Constitution being dynamic, or adaptable if you like that language better (even if one were to say that the inherent rights were always imbedded in the document, you could not necessarily say the Founding Fathers intended these rights to be implemented--since they owned slaves and did not allow women to vote--unless they were complete hypocrites or strict pragmatists, neither of which I believe is the case--but I must be careful, because much smarter constitutional scholars than myself have written on these things).
But was is so striking about the language of the document is that the judicial powers are derived from the people and must be exercised with conformity to the "values, norms, and aspirations of the people." The dangers that people usually site in the US against having a living constitutional framework is that having the masses decide norms all the time can inflict hardships on minorities, or the minorities can be too loud and overbearing and impose something upon the majority. And how does one determine the values, norms and aspirations of the people? And does "the people" mean 51%, a supermajority, a plurality? But with so many different tribes and people groups making up Uganda, how does the judiciary come their determinations? That is for another conversation with the judges, and for another post.
But for now, Uganda is dealing with the constitutionality of things such as Female Genital Mutilation and Bride Price. The former is hardly practices in Uganda (by only three tribes I believe), while the latter is almost universally practiced in one form or another by all tribes in Uganda. We will see how they come out and which one will be upheld and which will be struck down.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Coming to Uganda is such a broadening experience, and realizing that the living/dynamic view is inherent to their constitution is not only different from the US, but is a unique constitutional approach that I had not heard of before--so far as the language being inherent to the constitution itself. There is a completely different historical arc and foundation for the people here, and in its infancy (as it is still in many ways regarding independence) the system seems to be working well for the country.
So, there it is. The conundrum for me is more one of getting out of my own perspective, culture, and history to look at things a different way. But beyond that, what do you think of the structure and its sustainability for the future of Uganda?
Peace to you all.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
While we were speaking, Justice Kiryabwire began speaking of how the Constitution needed to be dynamic and a living document, adaptable with each generation. Many of you lawyers or law students or Constitutional scholars, or just interested citizens, will recognize this language as buzz words in debates over the interpretation of our own Constitution. And regardless of which side of the fence you fall, it is interesting to hear from another country with a much different history and circumstances how they view their constitutional structure and purpose. Then the kicker came. Justice Kiryabwire went to an article in their constitution that codifies the "living/dynamic" nature of the document.
Article 126, titled Exercise of Judicial Power, says the following:
(1) Judicial power is derived from the people and shall be exercised by the courts established under this Constitution in the name of the people and in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people. (http://www.ugandaonlinelawlibrary.com/files/constitution/constitution_1995.pdf)
This falls under Chapter Eight of their constitution which deals with the Judiciary and Administration of justice.
Another interesting fact that helps understand this better is that in 1962 when Uganda gained independence, they formed a Constitution. Then in 1966 they tore up that Constitution and wrote a new one. The same thing happened in 1969. Then in 1995, which is the last constitution established and is the one ruling today, they tore up the 1969 constitution. It is like starting with a clean slate of sorts every time. But what that does, especially with such a relative short history of independence, is preclude even the possibility of attempting an "originalist" structure of interpretation. For example, they cannot look back 250 years ago and debate over what founding fathers meant over specific language and, for example, whether the intent was for only Congress to institute war or whether the power was left to the President as well.
We cannot say that we as the United States of America have not adapted our views over the years to appropriately change our view of the Constitution, either. If we had not, we would still own slaves and women would not be voting. So there are at least some elements of the Constitution being dynamic, or adaptable if you like that language better (even if one were to say that the inherent rights were always imbedded in the document, you could not necessarily say the Founding Fathers intended these rights to be implemented--since they owned slaves and did not allow women to vote--unless they were complete hypocrites or strict pragmatists, neither of which I believe is the case--but I must be careful, because much smarter constitutional scholars than myself have written on these things).
But was is so striking about the language of the document is that the judicial powers are derived from the people and must be exercised with conformity to the "values, norms, and aspirations of the people." The dangers that people usually site in the US against having a living constitutional framework is that having the masses decide norms all the time can inflict hardships on minorities, or the minorities can be too loud and overbearing and impose something upon the majority. And how does one determine the values, norms and aspirations of the people? And does "the people" mean 51%, a supermajority, a plurality? But with so many different tribes and people groups making up Uganda, how does the judiciary come their determinations? That is for another conversation with the judges, and for another post.
But for now, Uganda is dealing with the constitutionality of things such as Female Genital Mutilation and Bride Price. The former is hardly practices in Uganda (by only three tribes I believe), while the latter is almost universally practiced in one form or another by all tribes in Uganda. We will see how they come out and which one will be upheld and which will be struck down.
I would love to hear your thoughts on this. Coming to Uganda is such a broadening experience, and realizing that the living/dynamic view is inherent to their constitution is not only different from the US, but is a unique constitutional approach that I had not heard of before--so far as the language being inherent to the constitution itself. There is a completely different historical arc and foundation for the people here, and in its infancy (as it is still in many ways regarding independence) the system seems to be working well for the country.
So, there it is. The conundrum for me is more one of getting out of my own perspective, culture, and history to look at things a different way. But beyond that, what do you think of the structure and its sustainability for the future of Uganda?
Peace to you all.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Happy Independence Day and Congratulations
A belated Happy Independence Day to the country of Uganda. On 9 October 1962 the British flag was lowered in Kampala while the Ugandan flag was simultaneously raised signifying independence and marking a significant step towards the end of outright colonialism in Africa. I am proud to be serving the nation of Uganda and hope and pray that independence will be an ever deepening and actualized reality for all in the country.
There is a picture that I intend to post (this post is now a week old because of my picture uploading struggles) for a few of you that I had spoken to before leaving the US. I recall telling some of you about the posters they have in the courthouses here, and though they can seem humorous in the presentation, they are serious in their message. I was once tempted to laugh at these posters until I realized how much they are fighting against corruption in the courts and how they are pushing very hard to be free of corrupting influences and agents. As soon as I can get the upload function to work, I will post them.
With that in mind, I want to congratulate the Commercial Court of Uganda on winning the local Rotary Club's Clean Business Award for Corporate Social Responsibility, last Wednesday. This award highlights not only how the impact the Commercial Court is having, but how hard everyone in the court is working to provide justice for all Commercial Court users of Uganda. I hope to have a picture of the award up soon.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
There is a picture that I intend to post (this post is now a week old because of my picture uploading struggles) for a few of you that I had spoken to before leaving the US. I recall telling some of you about the posters they have in the courthouses here, and though they can seem humorous in the presentation, they are serious in their message. I was once tempted to laugh at these posters until I realized how much they are fighting against corruption in the courts and how they are pushing very hard to be free of corrupting influences and agents. As soon as I can get the upload function to work, I will post them.
With that in mind, I want to congratulate the Commercial Court of Uganda on winning the local Rotary Club's Clean Business Award for Corporate Social Responsibility, last Wednesday. This award highlights not only how the impact the Commercial Court is having, but how hard everyone in the court is working to provide justice for all Commercial Court users of Uganda. I hope to have a picture of the award up soon.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Thursday, 1 October 2009
Radio Silence
My apologies to all for the radio silence. I have been in Ethiopia for a legal conference the last week and believe it or not the internet connection was even more sparse there than in Uganda. I have another post that I will put up hopefully today. Hope all is well with everyone.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Time to stop monkeying around
Here it is a month and a half into my appointment at the Commercial Court in Uganda and I don't feel any closer to getting things resolved or changing the legal culture to a favorable disposition towards mediation. It can be frustrating when 90% of the mediations you have scheduled get adjourned because one party did not show up, or attorneys showed up without clients, or no one shows up at all. On top of that, it is like nails on a chalk board at times when you do get into a mediation and the parties, on either or both sides, have no real interest in trying to resolve things. Then there are the rhinoceroses which take three to four mediation sessions at two to four hours per session to get progress. I have about four or five of these going right now trying to push them to resolution, but there is still a real possibility for most of them that they could end up in court.
I guess this is a bit of a venting and a bit of a rant to say: I wish the legal culture was more receptive here (because mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been present and practiced in Africa long before we ever heard about it in the West--it was the MO of Africa for centuries until they were taught litigation, and just like a pitbull, litigation mindset does not like to let go once it has taken hold); I also wish I was a better mediator. I guess there has to be some slack given, since I have had so few mediations, and really I have only referred two cases to court so far--everything else is still in progress. And my first week, I did--with Justice Kiryabwire's help of pushing it across the finish line--mediate a dispute that had been in the courts here for ten years. So, I guess things are not as bad as they seem, but they can be frustrating. But ultimately, I need to get down to business and stop monkeying around (i.e. stop trying to acclimate and focus on the work). Do not get the impression I have been doing nothing here--quite to the contrary. But it feels like there is a wall that needs to be broken through to start being more effective and efficient. So, that is the plan. And that plan is now public. Feel free to ask me how its going and what's happening, if you so desire. I came to Uganda wanting to change things and I will not leave until it is done. By the grace of God things will be changed for the better.
On the brighter side, I gave a lecture on structured mediation to cultural leaders and LC's (local councilmembers) in the north of Uganda yesterday, in a town called Lira, which was received very well. The presentation seemed to go well and was understood because the questions were very pointed and were incisive for the depth of presentation I gave. It was an honor to be able to present and I thank Dickson Ogwang of the Peace and Reconciliation Ministries based in Lira, as well as Sam Casey of Advocates International, for the invitation.
Three pictures are included: the first is of a monkey that was beside the road on the drive up, right as we crossed the Nile; the next one is of a baboon that I came across (there were several strolling by the road). The last picture is me giving the presentation (and I hope you appreciate this picture because for the past dozen years I have disliked any picture of myself--you can see I am looking a little too healthy). Thanks to my friend and driver, Daniel Ntende, for taking the picture of me lecturing yesterday.
Peace be upon you all.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
I guess this is a bit of a venting and a bit of a rant to say: I wish the legal culture was more receptive here (because mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) has been present and practiced in Africa long before we ever heard about it in the West--it was the MO of Africa for centuries until they were taught litigation, and just like a pitbull, litigation mindset does not like to let go once it has taken hold); I also wish I was a better mediator. I guess there has to be some slack given, since I have had so few mediations, and really I have only referred two cases to court so far--everything else is still in progress. And my first week, I did--with Justice Kiryabwire's help of pushing it across the finish line--mediate a dispute that had been in the courts here for ten years. So, I guess things are not as bad as they seem, but they can be frustrating. But ultimately, I need to get down to business and stop monkeying around (i.e. stop trying to acclimate and focus on the work). Do not get the impression I have been doing nothing here--quite to the contrary. But it feels like there is a wall that needs to be broken through to start being more effective and efficient. So, that is the plan. And that plan is now public. Feel free to ask me how its going and what's happening, if you so desire. I came to Uganda wanting to change things and I will not leave until it is done. By the grace of God things will be changed for the better.
On the brighter side, I gave a lecture on structured mediation to cultural leaders and LC's (local councilmembers) in the north of Uganda yesterday, in a town called Lira, which was received very well. The presentation seemed to go well and was understood because the questions were very pointed and were incisive for the depth of presentation I gave. It was an honor to be able to present and I thank Dickson Ogwang of the Peace and Reconciliation Ministries based in Lira, as well as Sam Casey of Advocates International, for the invitation.
Three pictures are included: the first is of a monkey that was beside the road on the drive up, right as we crossed the Nile; the next one is of a baboon that I came across (there were several strolling by the road). The last picture is me giving the presentation (and I hope you appreciate this picture because for the past dozen years I have disliked any picture of myself--you can see I am looking a little too healthy). Thanks to my friend and driver, Daniel Ntende, for taking the picture of me lecturing yesterday.
Peace be upon you all.
*All photos are copyright John M. Napier unless otherwise indicated.*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
