Uganda’s judiciary has rejected a directive from the Uganda Law Society (ULS) instructing lawyers to stop addressing judges with colonial-era honorifics such as “My Lord” and “My Lady” and to abandon the longstanding practice of bowing before judicial officers, intensifying a growing debate over the future of the country’s justice system.

The conflict has sparked broader discussions throughout Africa about whether judicial systems left over from previous colonial powers should uphold customs that many detractors claim are archaic, hierarchical, and incompatible with contemporary democratic ideals.

As part of its “decolonising justice and restoring dignity to the people,” the Uganda Law Society issued a statement instructing its members to immediately stop using titles such as “My Lord,” “Your Lordship,” “My Lady,” and “Your Worship.” Additionally, the professional association forbade attorneys from kneeling before judges, citing this practice as a holdover from colonial authority that perpetuates the disparity between judges and the people they represent.

According to the ULS, these courtroom customs no longer reflect the principles of equality before the law and instead perpetuate a culture that elevates judges above the public. The society argued that such “feudal and colonial honorifics” portray judicial officers as superior to ordinary citizens, “who are in reality their employers.”

Under the directive signed by ULS President Isaac Ssemakadde, advocates have instead been instructed to use simpler and more contemporary forms of address, including “Mr Justice,” “Madam Justice,” “Mr Judge,” “Madam Judge,” “Mr Magistrate,” or, where appropriate, simply refer to judicial officers by their surnames.

The society further directed that lawyers and litigants appearing before courts should remain standing upright rather than bowing, saying courtroom decorum should reflect the dignity of free citizens rather than practices rooted in colonial authority.

“The practice of bowing or any other form of physical subservience before judicial officers is henceforth prohibited for all members of the Uganda Law Society. All advocates and litigants appearing before any court or tribunal shall stand upright and speak as free citizens.”
Isaac Ssemakadde

Moreover, ULS maintained that Uganda’s justice system continues to be shaped by colonial structures introduced during British rule, arguing that some inherited traditions contribute to perceptions of inequality within the courts.

It noted that colonial courtroom practices “force Ugandans into postures of humiliation as the powerful enjoy comfort and deference,” adding that such customs have contributed to the “failure” of aspects of the country’s judicial system.

The Ugandan courts, however, quickly rejected the proposal, arguing that the Law Society has no authority to control judicial protocol or courtroom procedures.

James Ereemye, a spokesman for the judiciary, stated that the courts continue to be an autonomous branch of government and that the judiciary’s institutional mandate, not that of professional groups, governs judgements about behaviour in the courtroom.

He said the judiciary would continue to uphold established standards of courtroom decorum regardless of the ULS directive, stating,“the Uganda Law Society has no authority to tell judges what to do or say.”

He added that judges would continue to “demand the known decorum” from lawyers appearing before them.

Ereemye also criticised the manner in which the directive had been issued, arguing that any proposals for institutional reform should be pursued through formal consultation rather than unilateral declarations.

“If you have a point, you use the appropriate forum for discussion and when you make a good case, it forms part of the policy.”
James Ereemye

Colonial-Era Court Traditions Face Renewed Scrutiny

The disagreement in Uganda is part of a larger discussion that is taking place in a number of African nations on whether or not contemporary legal institutions should be defined by judicial customs that were passed down from British colonial rule.

During colonial control, Uganda, like many other former British colonies, borrowed a lot of its legal system, courtroom etiquette, and judicial practices from the United Kingdom. Since independence, these customs have mostly not changed, with judges still donning formal robes and attorneys adhering to ceremonial procedures created centuries ago for British courts.

However, in recent years, legal experts, attorneys, and civil society organisations throughout Africa have questioned whether such traditions are still suitable in states aiming to improve democratic governance and increase the accessibility of judicial systems for common people.

Meanwhile, Uganda is not the first African country to confront these questions. In 2011, former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga of adjacent Kenya gained international attention for his decision to take the oath of office in a business suit rather than the customary colonial-style judicial robes and wig. His ruling triggered broader conversations about updating court customs and became a potent emblem of judicial change.

Similar discussions have also surfaced in Zimbabwe and Malawi, where attorneys and legal analysts have questioned whether titles, dress standards, and courtroom customs from the colonial era are still relevant in modern African cultures.

While some reforms have mainly addressed standard attire, others have looked at more general concerns of courtroom language, accessibility, and public participation.

Advocates of these reforms contend that justice systems should represent national identity rather than colonial heritage.