2009年-世界发展银行全球_Uganda_-_Legal_and_Judicial_Sector_Study_Report_122页_1mb

Uganda Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) Study Report Summary

Core Content

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Justice, Law and Order Sector (JLOS) in Uganda, focusing on the implementation of the Sector Investment Plan (SIP) Phase I and II. It outlines the sector's development, challenges, and future directions, emphasizing the importance of coordination, legal education, and access to justice for the poor and vulnerable.

Main Objectives and Purpose

• To share lessons learned from SIP I and identify remaining challenges in the JLOS.
• To explore how the World Bank can support the ongoing reforms without undermining the sector-wide approach.
• To evaluate the effectiveness of SIP I and the progress made under SIP II.

Methodology

• Conducted in two parts: a desk review of existing studies and reports, and one-on-one interviews with representatives from JLOS institutions, civil society organizations (CSOs), the private sector, and International Development Partners (IDPs).
• The report was updated in 2007 and finalized with government consultations in March 2008.

Scope of the Study

• Examines the development of JLOS institutions under SIP I and II.
• Focuses on the following areas:
  • Commercial and criminal justice reforms.
  • Legal education and training.
  • Access to justice for the poor and vulnerable.
  • Role of non-state actors in the sector.
  • Financial mechanisms and resource allocation.

Key Sector Institutions

Legal Education and Training

• The JLOS has historically struggled to align legal education with sector needs.
• During SIP I, the focus was on improving case management and staff administration.
• SIP II emphasizes the development of a sector-wide human rights training program.
• Legal education institutions face challenges due to increased student numbers without corresponding resources or facilities.
• There is a need for legal education to better prepare graduates for the demands of the justice sector and private sector.

Implementation of JLOS SIP

SIP I Successes

• All JLOS institutions had mandates aligned with SIP I.
• Improved coordination, communication, and cooperation among institutions.
• Establishment of the Commercial Court and reduction of case backlogs.
• Introduction of court annexed mediation at CADER, which contributed to case resolution.

SIP I Challenges

• Limited sustainability of CADER due to funding issues.
• Insufficient focus on legal education and training.
• Inadequate infrastructure in some institutions, particularly prisons.
• Staff retention challenges in the police, prisons, and MoJCA.

SIP II Developments

• Shift in focus to include land and family justice.
• Integration of CADER into the JLOS to ensure sustainability.
• Emphasis on human rights training across all institutions.
• Introduction of the Legal Aid Basket Fund (LABF) to support legal aid services.

Access to Justice for the Poor and Vulnerable

• JLOS had limited presence in conflict-affected areas during SIP I.
• Post-conflict, the sector has prioritized these areas with financial commitments.
• Local Council Courts (LCCs) were established to improve access to justice, but their administration and monitoring remain challenges.
• Land Tribunals (LTs) were suspended in 2006 due to inefficiency and high costs.
• The report highlights the need for a new strategy to improve land justice.

Non-State Actors

• Civil society organizations (CSOs) and legal aid service providers (LASPs) play a crucial role in legal education and access to justice.
• The Legal Aid Service Providers Network (LASPNET) was formed to coordinate legal aid efforts.
• The process of transitioning from uncoordinated funding to the Legal Aid Basket Fund (LABF) is ongoing.

Financing of the SIP

• The SIP is funded through a combination of government budgets and international development assistance.
• The report outlines the proposed funding mechanisms for SIP II, including the Legal Aid Basket Fund.
• There is a need for more structured and predictable funding to ensure the sustainability of reforms.

Conclusions and Recommendations

• The JLOS has made progress in coordination, communication, and service delivery.
• Continued commitment is needed to ensure the sustainability of SIP II.
• A sector-wide human rights training program should be implemented.
• Legal education needs to be better aligned with sector needs.
• Access to justice for the poor and vulnerable should be a priority.
• A new strategy for land justice is required to address the backlog of disputes.

Key Information

• SIP I (2001/2–2005/6): Focused on commercial and criminal justice reforms.
• SIP II: Introduced land and family justice as new program areas.
• CADER: Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, which contributed to case resolution but faced sustainability challenges.
• LABF: Legal Aid Basket Fund, which supports legal aid services and is being phased in.
• LCCs: Local Council Courts, established to improve access to justice for the poor.
• LTs: Land Tribunals, which were suspended due to inefficiency and high costs.
• Human Rights: A key focus of SIP II, with an emphasis on sector-wide training and awareness.
• Coordination: Improved under SIP II, with a focus on inter-sector linkages and collaboration.
• Challenges: Staff retention, legal education, access to justice for the poor, and funding.

Summary of Key Findings

• The JLOS has made significant progress in improving coordination, communication, and service delivery.
• The Commercial Court and CADER were major successes under SIP I.
• Legal education and training remain inadequate and need to be better aligned with sector needs.
• Access to justice for the poor and vulnerable is a key priority, with ongoing efforts to improve it.
• The JLOS continues to face challenges in staff retention, infrastructure, and funding.
• SIP II represents a more comprehensive and inclusive approach to justice sector reform.