Why the courts must go green

_________________

OPINION

By Eunice Asinguza Mubangizi

Mother Nature is not impressed. From flash floods that carry off boda bodas like rubber duckies, to droughts that make even cacti beg for water, the environment is sending Uganda - and the world - a very clear message: “Handle me with care… or else.”

Across the globe, everyone is catching on. Citizens are waking up faster than a mosquito in a lit bedroom, realising that climate change isn’t just a faraway problem for polar bears.

It is here, it is serious. And yes, it is everyone’s business. Ice caps are melting faster than ice cream in Kampala's heat. Forests are burning, floods are raging, and everyone is pointing fingers not at each other, but at the institutions and governments who are supposed to be environmental watchdogs, not lapdogs.

Uganda isn’t just watching from the sidelines. The green spirit is growing.

If our late environmental heroes such as Professor John Ntambirweki, Justice Kenneth Kakuru, Moses Mapesa, and Kenya’s very own tree-hugger-in-chief, Wangari Maathai, suddenly showed up, they would probably say: “Wow! Look at all these green warriors! And… wait, still no environmental court?”

And therein lies the problem. We have had discussions hotter than the greenhouse gases we are supposed to regulate, but when it comes to where we sort out these environmental issues, we have nothing to show! Uganda still lacks a specialised court for Mother Earth’s legal woes. And no, just tossing these cases into any old courtroom doesn’t cut it.

The judicial jungle we are in

Currently, if you want to sue someone for turning a wetland into a washing bay, you will probably be stuck in a queue behind land wrangles, chicken theft, and someone who can’t pay their mobile money loan.

Environmental cases in Uganda are handled by regular High Court circuits, your everyday magistrates, and the Standards and Utilities Court in Makindye, which has tried its best, but is also engulfed in trying other cases from the rest of the Regulators.

The Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal have weighed in on a few green matters, such as the landmark case of Nyakaana vs. NEMA, Attorney General & Others (Constitutional Appeal No. 5 of 2011) [2015] UGSC 14.

Still, mainstream courts were not exactly built with climate science, biodiversity reports, and carbon emissions charts in mind.

The result? A few messy things:

• Backlogs long enough to qualify as environmental disasters themselves.
• Judges who may be brilliant with theft and murder cases, but blink blankly at phrases like “anthropogenic emissions and carbon sequestration”
• Prioritisation problems, where environmental cases are treated like the sad kid who always gets picked last for football.
• Corruption muddles the already polluted waters.
• And let’s not forget the limited remedies, where justice often arrives too late - if it arrives at all.

Justice Delayed is Nature Betrayed

When environmental justice takes too long, the consequences don’t just stay in the courtroom. They flood your home, dry up your crops, and reduce your favorite nature reserve to a dust bowl. Restoration becomes like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube: technically possible, but messy, frustrating, and often not worth it.

Justice Antonio Herman Benjamin of Brazil’s High Court summed it up best: “Environmental conflicts require quick action or response, which is incompatible with the slow pace of the court system that, due to its bureaucracy and technical rituals, eventually becomes an obstacle to effective protection of the environment and to economic progress." Translation: You can’t fight climate emergencies with court calendars that move slower than traffic on Jinja Road.

Do other countries have green courts?

Oh, yes. They do. And lots of them. Some countries were ahead of the game back when bell-bottoms were still cool.

Environmental courts began popping up in the 1970s, back when disco was all the rage. Today, more than 1,200 specialised courts exist in at least 44 countries. Kenya, for example, has an environmental court. China, never one to do things in half-measures, has nearly 300! And Uganda?

These courts are quicker, sharper and greener in the delivery of justice. They bring in science experts, understand environmental law, and don’t treat your forest like just another disputed piece of land.

Uganda still warming up

Uganda isn’t completely clueless. In July 2021, Chief Justice Alfonse Owiny-Dollo boldly declared: “Let there be a special court for the environment!” And the people said, “Amen!”

But then… what went wrong?

Even during the drafting of the National Environment Bill in 2017, there was a shining moment when Part XIII promised a dedicated environmental tribunal. The environmental community got excited. We started designing logos. And then Parliament seemed to say: “Never mind.” The tribunal section was dropped like a hot charcoal stove.

Why Now?

Here is the deal. Whether it is today, tomorrow, or the next time Entebbe International Airport gets flooded by a rising Lake Victoria, Uganda needs a dedicated environmental court to find the cause and offer remedies. It is not just about laws. It is about life, legacy, and our national sanity.

The government, judiciary, and everyone with a stake in Uganda’s natural beauty must rally. Let us give the environment the justice system it deserves before it gets so angry it turns all our trees into firewood. Because if we wait too long, even the birds might sue us for reckless endangerment of their habitat.

The writer is the Legal and Corporate Affairs Manager at NEMA. She also represents the Least Developed Countries on the Compliance Committee of the Paris Agreement. And yes, she thinks frogs deserve justice too.