By Ben Musanje
The Uganda Law Society (ULS) has endorsed the Judiciary’s ambitious plan to transition to a fully paperless court system by July 1, 2026, but warned that significant legal, technological and accessibility gaps could undermine access to justice if left unaddressed.
ULS Vice President Anthony Asiimwe during a Radical New Bar Live weekly engagement with the media and public at the society’s headquarters in Kololo on Thursday, welcomed Administrative Circular No. 1 of 2026, released by Chief Justice Dr. Flavian Zeija, describing the move as a major step toward modernizing Uganda’s justice system. However, the Society cautioned that the transition must be accompanied by stronger safeguards to protect constitutional rights, promote inclusivity and prevent abuse of digital systems.
“The Uganda Law Society supports the transition to a paperless judiciary,” Asiimwe said. “But digital transformation must not come at the expense of fairness, transparency and equal access to justice.”
The paperless court initiative aligns with the ULS’s Radical New Bar Vision 2060, particularly its Digital Transformation pillar, which seeks to harness technology to improve efficiency, reduce case backlogs and enhance transparency within the justice sector.
The Society also praised a recently launched report by PM Digital Law Hub titled Assessing Readiness for Uganda’s Transition to a Fully Paperless Judiciary Effective 1 July 2026. The report was based on a survey involving lawyers, judicial officers, court staff, litigants and other stakeholders and examined the country’s preparedness for the digital shift.
Asiimwe said it had intentionally delayed commenting on the circular until stakeholders had been consulted, arguing that the survey now provides an objective basis for engagement with the Judiciary and Government on implementation.
While acknowledging progress made through the Electronic Court Case Management Information System (ECCMIS) since its launch in 2022, the Society noted that Uganda remains behind regional peers such as Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania in building a comprehensive digital justice ecosystem despite substantial public investment.
The lawyers’ body singled out a provision in the circular requiring judicial officers to conduct proceedings, manage cases and deliver decisions exclusively through ECCMIS, arguing that the directive raises several concerns.
Among the most significant issues highlighted is the absence of explicit guarantees that the paperless regime remains subject to constitutional protections, including the right to a fair, speedy and public hearing.
Aiimwe argued that the circular does not adequately safeguard the principle of open justice, warning that public and media access to court proceedings, records and judgments could be weakened if clear transparency measures are not established.
“There must be safeguards to prevent the emergence of opaque electronic justice,” the Asiimwe said, stressing that constitutional provisions on freedom of expression, access to information and public participation must remain fully protected in the digital environment.
ULS also expressed concern that a purely electronic court process could compromise flexibility in complex or sensitive cases. It argued that constitutional petitions, land disputes and matters involving vulnerable persons may require hybrid or in-person hearings to ensure fairness and maintain public confidence.
The Society further criticized the lack of contingency measures for technological failures, including power outages, internet disruptions, system breakdowns and cyberattacks.
“In Uganda’s context, these challenges are not hypothetical,” the statement noted, warning that the absence of backup procedures could disrupt proceedings and deny litigants access to justice.
One of the strongest criticisms centered on the risk of excluding marginalized groups. Asiimwe warned that rural communities, the elderly, low-income citizens and people with limited digital literacy could face significant barriers under a fully electronic system.
The Society argued that the current rollout strategy has largely focused on Kampala and other well-resourced urban courts while many remote districts continue to face severe infrastructure challenges.
“The worst delays, missing files, high pretrial remand and absenteeism are not in Nakawa; they are in courts that remain off-grid and underserved,” the Asiimwe said.
ULS proposed a “last-mile first” approach, under which digital reforms would prioritize regions with the widest justice gaps before expanding to urban centres. According to the Society, proving that ECCMIS can function effectively in remote areas would demonstrate its readiness for nationwide implementation.
The lawyers’ body also maintained that technology alone cannot resolve longstanding concerns about judicial conduct.
Drawing from experiences during ECCMIS’s pilot phase, ULS argued that issues such as delays, judicial arrogance and arbitrary decision-making persist regardless of the platform used.
The Society cited what it described as the failure of the Ggaba mobile court to process a case filed by ULS despite complaints to senior judicial authorities, saying the incident demonstrated how digital systems can be manipulated or ignored without accountability mechanisms.
Asiimwe further accused some judicial officers of using ECCMIS to compel parties to file written submissions in routine matters previously handled orally, increasing costs and delaying justice.
Another concern relates to the lack of integration between ECCMIS and other government databases. ULS said the system should be linked to institutions such as the National Identification and Registration Authority, Uganda Registration Services Bureau, Police, Prisons Service and land registries to facilitate seamless information sharing.
Without such interoperability, the Society warned, delays in serving summonses, processing bail applications and enforcing court orders are likely to continue.
Asiimwe also criticized the Judiciary for introducing the circular without prior consultation with the legal profession and other stakeholders. It called for a more collaborative approach to implementation.
To address these concerns, the Society proposed a range of reforms, including explicit constitutional safeguards, public access portals for court records, live-streaming of proceedings, hybrid hearing options, backup filing systems and stronger cybersecurity protections.
It also recommended free public access kiosks, digital literacy programmes, subsidized internet access for vulnerable litigants and mandatory pro bono digital assistance to ensure no citizen is excluded from the justice system because of technology barriers.
Additionally, Asiimwe called for automated and transparent case allocation systems to eliminate perceptions of bias and “judge shopping,” as well as the creation of a joint Judiciary-ULS digital transition working group to oversee implementation.
Despite its reservations, the Society reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the Judiciary’s modernization agenda.
“The paperless transition presents a historic opportunity to transform justice delivery in Uganda,” the statement concluded. “With the right safeguards, inclusivity measures and stakeholder engagement, Uganda can become a regional leader in digital justice while preserving the constitutional values that underpin the rule of law.”
