Keynote Address by Mohamed Chande Othman, Chief Justice on the occasion of the Annual Conference of the Tanganyika Law

Society, 17 February 2012, Arusha, Tanzania

Hon Justices of Appeal, Hon Principal Judge and Judges of the High Court Hon President of the Tanganyika Law Society Learned Members of the Bar Distinguished Guests Ladies and Gentlemen Mr. President, First and foremost, I sincerely thank you and the Council for inviting me to this conclave and on top of it to crown me with the privilege of delivering the Keynote address. I am most honored to be part of this professional audience. I also appreciate very much your choice as the theme of this Annual Conference: Breaking the Mould: Addressing the Practical and Legal Challenges of Justice Delivery in Tanzania. The subject is of momentous interest to the Judiciary, the organized Bar, the litigating or opposing parties and the public.

My understanding of the Bar is that it does not exist for the mere self interest of the community of lawyers but for high Constitutional and democratic causes and respect for the law. An independent

judiciary and independent Bar (and a fearless one, if I may add) are indispensable for the rule of law and the protection of all basic rights and liberties. Best summarized, this is how the system operates: If the Judiciary is the guardian of the rights of the people, the organized Bar and its lawyers are the foot soldiers. The legal professional and the private bar bear a large share of the burden... (Robert J. Grey Jr, in Access to the Courts, Equal Justice to All, US Dept of State, Aug 2004). Mr. President, Given the focus of my assignment and its scale, I think the better approach would be for me to offer macro and micro perspectives of the most critical challenges, legal and practical facing criminal and civil justice delivery in Tanzania. These are interconnected and cross-cutting. To arrive at an overall true picture, I think it would be convenient and beneficial if I explore both the demand (the public, parties, litigants) and supply (judiciary, law enforcement, legal profession) side of the justice delivery.
2

As a starting point, it would be appropriate if I rehearse Article 107 A (1) of the Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania, 1977 (as amended), a principal source from which the Judiciary derives is fundamental legitimacy. It provides in unequivocal terms that the authority with final decision in the dispensation of justice rests with the Judiciary, the Third Branch of Government. This normative framework stands at the heart of the formal justice system. With the administration of justice vested in the Judiciary, it naturally follows that Advocates as responsible officers of the Court have an overall obligation to assist the Courts in the just and proper administration of justice. In other words, administration of justice is unthinkable without Advocates constituting fully fledged partners. I know that there are negligible minorities who consider lawyers a race not universally popular, but for my part I remain convinced and unshaken that the Bar and its members are a people universally indispensable. Mr. President, If I were to hazard the template that a sound judiciary is made of or ought to be composed of, in order to properly fulfill its Constitutional mandate, I would be highly inclined to propose that what is required is : (a) an independent, impartial and incorruptible judiciary, (b) one that is competent, efficient, fair and transparent, (c) that enjoys the full
3

confidence of the public and (d) which is reasonable accessible and affordable to those who seek the protection and remedy of the Constitution and law. A judiciary which is available to the poor, the marginalized, the most vulnerable and the unrepresented indigent parties. Mr. President, By the terms of the Constitution, which enshrines the separation of power, the Judiciary is a co-equal branch of Government, with the Executive and the Legislature. Moreover, the correct understanding of the independence of the judiciary is that it encompasses at least two essential principles, namely, institutional independence of other branches of government or actors and the individual or internal independence of judicial officers to exercise sovereign judicial authority and decision making. These principles govern justice delivery. Not only in history, but also in so far as the justice system and our laws are concerned, Tanzania akin to Kenya and Uganda have a common colonial heritage. Our formal justice systems take their deep roots from the common law and its adversarial process of justice. This is compounded by the uneasy coexistence of the common law, customary laws and religious laws, what Prof Ali Mazrui referred to as the triple heritage. To this blend, we could easy add statute law which has
4

gained momentum since Independence. The existence at the normative level of this concoction or matrix of laws, their interpretation and application possess unique challenges to justice delivery, including outstanding questions affecting the rights of women and of other disadvantaged groups. With our laws predominantly in English, the language of the law rather than Kiswahili, the language of the people, it is no surprise that it is often difficult for ordinary people in Tanzania to press for justice as rightly found in Tanzanias own self assessment on good governance ( 2010) under the Africa Peer Review Mechanism of NEPAD. We need to rethink, and if need be, reposition Kiswahili as the prime language of justice delivery. Mr. President, Let us take a glimpse at land. Recently, in Tanzania Mainland, the traditional system of dispute resolution in land matters was revived by the Village Land Act, 1999 which recognizes Village Councils and Ward Tribunals as part of the grass-root or local level institutions for settling land disputes, with powers to mediate. Furthermore, there is a whole new system of settling land disputes, outlined in the Land Courts (Dispute Settlement) Act, 2002. With the mix of the traditional systems at the local level and the modern system at the national level, the land disputes settlement has
5

created its own set of new challenges. These have an impact on the overall access to justice in land matters. At the local level, the Village Councils and Ward Tribunals and the District Land and Housing Tribunals administratively fall under the portfolio of the Executive, that is, the Ministry for Land and Human Settlements. At the upper level however, appeals from these Tribunals find their way to the Land Division of the High Court and ultimately to the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, which fall under the Judiciary. This kind of arrangement not only creates governance but also an accountability challenges. I have purposely shared this particular normative and legal framework for us to appreciate the complexities of one of the mould governing justice delivery. Mr. President, Allow me to take it further. Now, at the plenary level, one of the major challenges faced in the administration of justice in Tanzania is the adequacy of resources, particularly financial to deliver justice, efficiently and effectively. A facet of judicial independence is financial autonomy. Yet on the other hand, we are aware of the anxiety that over-dependence on financial resources from one source, Government carries a risk: he who pays the piper will attempt to call the tune Wahenga husema: Asokumbuka fadhila si mtu ni hayawani. In so far as
6

the Judiciary and justice delivery is concerned, I must be affirmative that we are not at a stage where, one can successfully argue that the Judiciarys lack of adequate financial resources is in any way a threat to our independence. What can be advanced with certainty, however, is that often the lack of sufficient financial resources imposes a serious limitation on our ability to deliver equal and timely justice. Our case then is of an under-resourced piper. Without full breath to blow the judicial pipe! Simply explained, without adequate financial resources, Court assessors cannot assist the 974 operating Primary Courts which by law they are required to, to render justice. The very venue where last year, two out of every three cases in the Judiciary were filed. Without those means, the High Court cannot convene criminal sessions to try accused charged with the murder of albinos or the aged (vikongwe) viciously victimized out of mere suspicion of wizardry. Where do we stand on this today: in the first half of the current budget year, 2011/2012 the Judiciary received only 63 % of its approved recurrent budget allocation for that period. The

consequences for the delivery of justice are inevitable. Again, we had hoped that the Judicial Administration Act, 2011 would provide a ray of hope, in the establishment of a Judiciary Fund
7

under section 52 (1), meant to expedite the disposal of cases, our core function. For the 2011/2012 budget, Tz shs 20 Billion was approved for the Fund. For the first half of the financial year, only Tz shs 6,327, 796, 972 /= of the expected Tz shs 10 billion was remitted to the Judiciary. For this period, this represents a shortfall of 36.7 %. Of course, we continue to urge for sufficient funding to match justice delivery needs. The plea we have been making is for an approved and respected allocation of 2 % of the annual recurrent budget of the Government for all our purposes. In 2009/2010, the Judiciary only received 0.56 % of the nationals total recurrent budget. By meaningful comparison, section 16 (1) of the Political Parties Act, Cap. 258, R.E. 2022, provide: The Government shalldisburse up to not less than two per centum of the annual recurrent budget, less the amount payable in defraying the national debt, in the grant of subventions to political parties As you can see, we are not asking for the impossible! Mr. President The second plenary challenge is human resource constraints. It directly affects justice delivery. At the Primary Court level there are 732 magistrates presiding over 1,105 Primary Courts. The Judge Population
8

ratio in Tanzania is less than 2 Judges per 1 million inhabitants, while that in Western Europe is 50 to 1 million people. Without an allocation of news cases, some High Court Judges today have been assigned a 5 years caseload to determine. Of the 1105 Primacy Courts, only 628 have Primacy Court Magistrates permanently stationed. Some 346 Primacy Courts are served by seasonal or visiting Magistrates. The Primary Court Magistrate stationed in Kigoma town is also responsible for dispensing justice at the Kalya and Uvinza Primary Courts, respectively situated, some 160 kilometers and 116 kilometers away. This human resource deficit has serious justice delivery consequences. This situation is applicable to the Bar as well. Compared to Tanzanias estimated population at some 43 million inhabitants, the 2317 Advocates in the rolls today are similarly insufficient to adequately cater for the administration of justice, nationally. I am reliably informed that there are only two Kigoma stationed advocates for the whole of Kigoma Region and only one Legal Aid provider, NOLA, with one Advocate. Three advocates operate out of Rukwa region and four in Ruvuma region are based. In the recent past, there used to be only one Advocate stationed in Mtwara. This spare and uneven national coverage of legal professionals compound the challenges in justice delivery.

Mr. President, The third plenary challenge is access to justice. It is a broad concept and has a number of interwoven components (access to formal and informal dispute resolution mechanisms; awareness of legal rights; access to laws and legal information; legal representation and legal aid; realization of just, equitable and enforceable outcome, etc). Plainly stated, as regards access to the formal justice system, part of the population, in particular rural communities have no ready or equal access to justice. Looking only at this aspect of access to justice, to date 50 years after Tanganyikas independence, 8 Regions have no High Courts and 26 Districts have no District Courts. And the Magistrates Court Act, Cap 11 R.E. 2002 is categorical that there shall be a District Court in every District. Many areas of Tanzania are denied Primary Courts. Worst still, we have closed 131 Primary Courts mainly due to collapsed or completely lapidated infrastructure. One variation of this challenge in access to justice- proximity-may be again be vividly illustrated by a resident from Kigoma Region. For a litigant in Kibondo to appeal against a decision of the District Court of Kibondo, he would have to file his appeal at the High Court at Tabora, situated some 674 kilometers away. The filing fee is Tz Shs 4,000/=; his bus return fare 75,000 /=.
10

Mr. President, Another essential requirement of access to justice is legal representation and legal aid. For many indigent parties, i.e. those with insufficient means, legal representation, if any, is still a feeble right. One unsettled challenge is in the absence of a comprehensive legal framework on legal aid and coordinated and effective legal aid schemes for all indigent parties in criminal and civil proceedings. No offence or prejudice intended, as one commentator observed: the quest for justice is often being fought on one side with a hired gun and on the other with an unarmed party. Equality of arms between those parties in judicial proceedings is often disproportional. Fairness in the justice process could be easily compromised. An annexed challenge in legal aid is that it is poorly funded. To an extent, free legal aid in criminal proceedings involving indigent accused is regulated under the Legal Aid (Criminal Proceedings) Act (Cap. 21 R.E. 2002). Under the Act and going by an entrenched practice only accused persons facing capital offence charges (murder) are being assigned advocates to conduct their defense in trials and on appeals. However, a serious legal aid gap exists for indigent accused charged with other serious criminal offences (e.g. sexual violence) involving sentences of up to imprisonment for life. In
11

civil matters, the closest the law has gone is only to exempt legal aid organizations and those with insufficient means (pauper) from the payment of court fees. This too is grossly insufficient to ensure adequate legal representation of indigent litigants. I wholeheartedly welcome the contribution of the Bar, the School of Law of the University of Dar es salaam, the Open University Legal Aid Centre, TAWLA, LHCR, NOLA and many other Legal Aid and Para-Legal Organizations in providing free legal aid. Worth mentioning is also your 5th Annual Legal Aid Day commemorated on 3 December 2011 which by any standard was an enormous success. I was also comforted that last year we enrolled a numerous new advocates who were intending to be engaged full time with Legal Aid Organizations. They merit our full support. Mr. President, Another major challenge that the delivery of justice faces is that of enhancing public confidence and the credibility of the justice system and its operators- Judges and Magistrates, Advocates, the Public Prosecutor and the State Attorney. The Judiciary is the repository of public faith. A vote of no confidence by the public on the judiciary would be catastrophic for the rule of law. Popular dissatisfaction with the administration of justice easily triggers a breach of peace. Mob
12

justice, no question, a criminal act, that is frequently reported by the Media is also partly a frustrated manifestation of public discontent with the criminal justice system and its law enforcement institutions. To an extent, this is a verdict on our performance to deliver justice. Borrowing from the words of Lord Devlin in The Judge (1979, p. 25), we know quite well that we are not yet at a stage where we can confidently say we are being admired to excess by the public. The judiciary enjoys public legitimacy so long as it can maintain it. The judiciary is different in form and function from the Executive and the Legislature. Its legitimacy and relevance depends on building and maintaining positive relationships in at least three overlapping spheres: (a) with the other branches of government; (b) with the public at large; and (c) internally within the judiciary and externally with the legal community. Mr. President, Corruption, yet another challenge has a ruinous effect on justice delivery, the integrity and credibility of the judiciary and of the legal profession. The wide public perception is that corruption, grand and petty has filtered through a lot of society. It is no longer breaking news that part of the public also perceives the Judiciary as a corrupt institution. We must acknowledge that some reported incidents of
13

corruption, misconduct and questionable judicial integrity involving a few judicial officers have been acted upon by the Judicial Service Commission. Corruption barometers and indexes , whether or not the outcome of conjecture, speculation or empirical inquiry, have it that in the eyes of the public, the most corrupt institutions in Tanzania are the Police, the Judiciary, Land Authorities and the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA). The Cartoonist of the Guardian on 21 November 2011, in his caption, unsympathetically labeled them the chosen few. Respectful of gender, like Caesars wife or for that matter Cleopatras husband, the Judiciary and its functionaries are expected to be above suspicion. As legal professionals, we cannot ignore this negative perception. It shapes public faith and trust in the justice system. Moreover, if unabated it will continue to undermine our faculty to render impartial decisions and the appearance of justice. It is essential that: justice must not only be done but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done (Lord Hewart in R v Sussex Justices, Ex parte McCarthy, [1926] KB 256, 259) An associated public perception on corruption is that involving Advocates. Their alleged involvement in corruption affecting justice delivery. The saying is birds of the same feather stock together! The public reading of a lawyer is also not always positive. An aloof and arrogant msomi!
14

We must take collective and corrective measure. First, in enhancing professional conduct and the integrity of judicial and non judicial officers and of Advocates. Second, in influencing by the justice we deliver, an affirmative change in the public perception of the Court and the legal profession as fully accountable. Thirdly, in investing more in continued legal education. Mr. President, Another significant challenge in the way of justice delivery concerns processes in the judiciary. Mostly, our judiciary is still labour intensive. Processes are still mostly manual. Judging is by longhand. In a few Courts, we still run on stencils. This state of affairs adversely impact justice delivery. We must be powered by Information and

Communication Technology (ICT) to render transparent and timely justice. We have adopted ICT, but with the exception of the High Court (Commercial Division) and the Court of Appeal it is still at its infancy. Judges and Magistrates are acquiring computer skills. We are in process of enhancing our Web-based Knowledge Data Base of Judgments and other important documentation, which will be freely and readily available to the legal profession and the public. We are committed be serious information and technological reform. International best practices have it proved that an automated and integrated Case
15

Management system, Court Recording and Transcription system and related applications are prime ingredients for Court efficiency and judicial dispatch. I must acknowledge the support we are receiving from the Legal Sector Reform and BEST Programmes and the Investment Climate Facility. We are also about to partner with the Commission on Science and technology, COSTEC. All in all, the challenge remains in conducing judicial business through an e-Court system and by the click of a mouse. Mr. President, Allow me to bring to your notice other equally very important legal and practical challenges affecting justice delivery. They all call for the breaking of the mould. It should be recalled that the command to the Judiciary under Article 107A (1) (e) of the Constitution is for justice not to be delayed without reasonable grounds. Taking a historical look, inordinate delays in the disposal of cases was among one of the unanimous findings of the Legal Task Force on the Justice Sector (1966) Chaired by Hon. Mark Bomani way back in 1996, 45 years ago. It is irrefutable that the judiciary continues to be confronted with an inordinate delay in the dispensation of justice. It is clothed with an accumulating and recurrent caseload and a huge backlog. The expeditious resolution of disputes is one of the fundamental
16

requirements of any effective and efficient system of justice delivery. Justice delayed is justice denied. For that very reason, the shared vision of the Justice Sector in Tanzania remains speedy dispensation of justice. For the Judiciary in its Draft Strategy, it is Timely and Accessible Justice for All. Across Courts, we have not yet attained the commitment of the Judiciary in its Client Service Charter, 2002 in guaranteeing that the pendency of a case in Court would be two years, maximum. We have achieved with regard to the High Court (Commercial Division), where by the new Commercial Court Rules about to be introduced, the life expectancy of a commercial dispute will be much lesser-ten months maximum. While in 2011, the overall number of pending cases across all Courts in Tanzania has continued to show a declining trend, we are unable to offer any trustworthy guarantee that each and every case filed in all our Courts will all be disposed of within a two year timeframe. Overall, the backlog persists. It lingers as the ultimate challenge in justice delivery. Strategies are in place. Efforts are being made. For example, while the Court of Appeal of Appeal disposed of 570 cases in 2010, it determined 903 in 2011. This could not be attainted without your learned cooperation. We admit resource constraints are not the only
17

cause of delay. In this the Bar has a pivotal role to smooth the movement of the chariot. An Advocate must have an eye not only in ensuring his or her clients success but must always keep in sight the speedy disposal of justice. Mr. President, The principle in Article 107 A 1 (d) of the Constitution is for the judiciary to promote and enhance dispute resolution among contestants of disputes. A major challenge in justice delivery is the timid use of alternative dispute mechanisms (ADR), in particular mediation and arbitration to settle disputes. Worldwide, interest in the potential of ADR in resolving commercial and civil disputes has mushroomed. The disappointing trend here is the inverse! ADR is neither second hand justice nor does it exist for the Judiciarys own interest. Mediation delivers less delay. It confers a more empowered outcome to the parties. It is more cost effective than litigation, which breeds more litigation. A while ago, in 1994, we had opted for and embraced a Court annexed mediation process under Order VIIIA of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 33 R.E. 2022. My modest assessment is that we have not scored the high success rate envisaged or achieved in other

18

jurisdictions operating under a similar court annexed mediation process. I dare say not even moderate success. In Mauritius Court annexed mediation for example has a success rate of over 45 %. In Malaysia, it boats a much higher achievement. In 2011, our best performance at the Commercial Court showed that only 11.43 % of cases were settled by mediation. From 2000-2010, a period of ten years, 20 % of all cases filed at the Commercial Court were settled through mediation. The indication is that it may have even have dropped! Who then is responsible for this disappointing state of affairs? I am not a believer in conspiracy theories. I find it hard to accept as true that there is a conspiracy to evade mediation altogether. It also cannot be that inherently, we Tanzanians have no mediation culture. If that were true, the Commission for Mediation and Arbitration (CMA) would not have been able to successfully mediate 6,904 labour disputes and Arbitrate over another 2,772 in the 2010/2011 budget year. At the CMA, by mediation the labour dispute resolution time has been reduced from 3 years to an average of 25 days. Furthermore, and this is a fact, traditional African societies placed a premium on amicable resolution of disputes. Often than not, civil litigants are motivated to dispose of their disputes swiftly, even without the trauma of a full
19

blown trial. With proper learned advice from Advocates, they would probably be most willing to compromise into a win win outcome that mediation offers. It is important for us to recall the minimum requirements for mediation if we want it to be worth its name. One, we must be sincere to resolving disputes by ADR. Two, the parties and their advocates should demonstrate commitment to mediation. To engage in good faith with a view to reaching a mutual settlement. Three, one has to be conversant with the facts of the dispute and the applicable law. This requires through preparation. Forth, it must be properly conducted by skilled mediators. Fifth, the environment must be a conducive one to mediation. I implore the Bar and its members to seriously recommit to a resurgence of mediation. The recipe for its invigorated use rests with us. On this, we are open for a dialogue on whether or not mediation should remain court annexed or externally referred? Whether apart from Magistrate or Judge Mediators or in their place, certified mediators should step into mediation? Whether or not the sanction for non-cooperation in the mediation and ADR processes ( e.g. non appearance during pre trial hearings or at mediation sessions) should

20

result in measures more stringent that an order for costs dismissal of the suit or default judgment. Mediation is not just another alternative. Rather, it is a viable, empowered, speedy and cost effective alternative to adversarial litigation. In the interest of justice delivery, it must be resuscitated. Mr. President, Procedural justice constitutes another imperative challenge. It has a direct influence on justice delivery. Article 107A (1) (e) of the Constitution enjoins the Court to dispense justice without being tied up with undue procedural technicalities. We must deal away with antiquated, time-consuming (onerous) and redundant procedures. They serve no purpose. Substantive justice must be rendered without unwarranted or excessive procedures. In Lushoto Tea Co. v Tanzania Tea Blenders, Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2004 and Majembe Auction Mart Ltd v Tango Transport Co. Ltd and Tanzania Revenue Authority, Civil Appeal No 88 of 2004, the Court of Appeal unequivocally explained that Courts cannot function without procedural rules. A Court without a code of rules or procedure is an invitation to chaos. We accepted too that not every procedural requirement is essential or goes to the root of the cause or matter. Legal professionals are expected to be conversant with statutory rules. Like you, I too am relieved that with
21

diligence the ugly age of the defective decrees and orders is now a forgotten era. While there are other allied concerns which centre on procedural justice, allow me to bring to your valued attention three matters requiring immediate rectification and at very low costs to the Judiciary and the Bar. By the Written Laws (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No: 10 of 2002 and the various laws cited therein, no appeal or revision shall lie against any preliminary or interlocutory decision or order of a lower court to a higher court unless such decision or order has the effect of finally determining the criminal charge or suit. And this was 12 years ago. The question I often pose is this: Why is it that we still have a pile of interlocutory appeals at the Court registries in spite of the known position of the law? Are we seriously testing the law or teasing its limit altogether? Does one really have to chase every rabbit down its burrow? Let me echo the words of the Supreme Court of India, in the Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs M.V. Dabholker and Another AIR 1976 SC 242: the central function of the legal profession is to promote the administration of justice. If the practice of law is thus a public utility of great implications and a monopoly is statutorily granted by the nation,
22

it obligates the lawyer to observe scrupulously those norms which make him worth of the confidence of the community in him as a vehicle of justice-social justice.Law is no trade, briefs no merchandise. Mr. President, Another is preliminary objections. You fully well know that the aim of preliminary objections on a point of law is to save the time of the Court and of the parties so that if it is upheld, the matter will summarily come to a close ( See, Bank of Tanzania v Devram P. Valambia, Civil Application Ni 153 of 2003 (COA) (unreported). What is now visible is a proliferation of preliminary objections for the sake of raising one, including the submission of some on contested facts. The real advantages of these objections on a point of law are being deliberately undermined. The result is unnecessary and prolonged litigation. And justice delivery pays for it! Next, let me speak a little on adjournments. Nowadays, a favorite subject for the media. These few headlines explain it well: Kesi ya Sinduhile yapigwa Kalenda, Tanzania Daima, 26/1/2012, Mawakili wa Liyumba wakwamisha kesi, Uhuru, 3 /12/2011 Kesi ya waalimu yaahirishwa, Majira. 6/12/2008
23

Thus recounted in newspapers, adjournments are fatally undermining public confidence in justice delivery. The discretionary power of the Court, whether statutory or inherent to grant or refuse an adjournment or for that matter the right of the parties to move the Court for one is not in dispute. An adjournment is grounded on sufficient or good reasons. They cannot be the norm by which judicial proceedings are conducted. What is at issue is the application or rather non-application of the law and of late, the emergence of a culture of adjournments. One in which (some) parties, advocates and Courts are complicit. In a Pilot Project at the High Court of Tanzania ( Dare s salaam) , a case flow analysis of 1, 778 civil cases filed between 13 May 1986 to 24 November 2011, revealed that 30, 857 scheduled hearings were adjourned ; of which 19, 936 ( i.e. 65 %) were deferred due to factors external to the Court ( irregular or incomplete service of process, parties or advocates failure to appear, including even when properly served or the parties own request for an adjournment ) and 10, 803 scheduled hearings ( 35 %) received the same fate, an adjournment, on the Courts own motion. Obviously, this must trigger an alarm. Collectively, we must decry all avoidable, preventable or unnecessary adjournments. This undesirable incidence of adjournments
24

is at odds with justice delivery. Our professional norms judicial officers, Advocates and State Attorneys require us to refrain from any casual approach that lead to extravagant delays in justice delivery. The high burden rests upon us to steer the correct expedited course in court proceedings. Bench Bar relationship I wish to conclude by saying a few words on the Bench-Bar relationship. Judicial accountability is indivisible with the accountability of the Bar. Inseparable. Advocates have been the gold deposit from which the Judiciary has extracted its Judges. Today of the 58 Judges at the High Court, 10 were accomplished advocates. We have 3 Court of Appeal judges from your ranks. Vice versa, the Bar has number of former Judges in your able membership. Speaking of the law, and as observed earlier, Advocates are officers of the Court, the formal avenue where justice is mostly delivered. Of late, we have jointly agreed with your Council to immediately rejuvenate the Bench-Bar Committees. My call is for us to maximize the use and productivity of this forum. To chart the way forward in overcoming the many challenges I have shared and many other that the Bar is familiar with. Finally, I hope that the toll order of fundamental, legal and practical challenges that I have attempted to share will stimulate
25

further debate on how we can break the mould. If we all play our respective parts constructively as professionals of the Bench and the Bar, I am convinced we will arrive at the vision we strive for: accessible and timely justice for all. I now have the singular honour and pleasure of declaring this Conference officially opened. I thank you for your kind attention and wish you most fruitful deliberations.

26