Court of Appeal Backlog Raises Questions Over Delayed Justice in Death Penalty Cases

By Umaru Ssenyonjo

A shortage of judges at Uganda’s Court of Appeal is contributing to delays in the disposal of cases, raising questions about access to justice for victims and the fate of convicts sentenced to death, a constitutional law expert has said.

The limited number of judges at the Court of Appeal has been identified as a major factor behind the backlog of cases awaiting determination, including appeals that can take years to conclude.

The issue has drawn public attention following questions about the delayed appeal of Okello Onyum, who was convicted of murdering four children in Ggaba. President Yoweri Museveni has also questioned why the case has taken so long to progress through the courts.

Speaking to Sanyu FM, Prof. Godfrey Ayeranga, a constitutional lawyer and law professor at Cavendish University, says the disparity between the number of High Court and Court of Appeal judges is contributing to the delays.

Prof. Ayeranga says Uganda has about 87 High Court judges spread across the country, compared with 18 Court of Appeal judges, leaving the appellate court with limited capacity to handle its caseload.

He explains that appeals are generally heard according to the order in which they are filed, meaning cases lodged later may have to wait while earlier matters are determined.

Ayeranga says the Judiciary could fast-track certain cases where justified, but warns delays are likely to persist unless the shortage of judges and the resulting backlog are addressed.

The delays also raise broader questions about the death penalty and the length of time convicts may spend awaiting the final outcome of their cases.

Prof. Ayeranga says Uganda’s approach to capital punishment must be understood against the background of a global human rights campaign urging countries to abandon or limit the use of the death penalty.

He points to concerns about the right to life and the psychological suffering associated with spending many years on death row. These issues featured in the landmark Supreme Court case of Susan Kigula and Others v Attorney General, which challenged Uganda’s mandatory death penalty regime and aspects of how death sentences were implemented.

The court ruled that the mandatory imposition of the death penalty was unconstitutional and addressed the implications of prolonged delays before execution. The ruling did not abolish the death penalty in Uganda.

Prof. Ayeranga says the wider human rights debate has contributed to greater caution around executions and helps explain why some death sentences have been commuted to life imprisonment.

However, the delay in determining an appeal is a separate legal issue from whether a death sentence should ultimately be carried out. An appeal allows a higher court to review a conviction or sentence, while the debate over capital punishment concerns the legality and implementation of the penalty itself.

The case of Okello Onyum therefore highlights two related but distinct concerns: the capacity of Uganda’s appellate courts to deliver timely justice and the legal and human rights questions surrounding the death penalty.

For victims and their families, prolonged appeals can delay finality in criminal proceedings. For people sentenced to death, delays can prolong uncertainty about their fate.

Addressing the backlog while ensuring that appeals receive proper judicial scrutiny remains central to the wider debate about timely justice, constitutional safeguards and the application of capital punishment in Uganda.