By Steven Masiga
No society or organization can exist in the world without encountering some form of conflict. Conflicts arise in various settings, including civil organizations such as cultural institutions, local governments (LGs), military organizations, and even within our homes.
However, the crucial aspect lies in how these conflicts are managed. Without proper resolution, they can lead to organizational decline, resulting in disorder and, in severe cases, the collapse of the organization.
A dispute is the outcome of unresolved conflict. Conflicts can be viewed as misunderstandings between individuals, cultural institutions, or even between different governments, including those between spouses.
The general causes of such rivalries can include differences in resource sharing, ideological differences, unrealistic expectations, unfulfilled promises, and other factors.
Uganda has a series of laws governing the resolution of such conflicts. In the context of cultural institutions, elders are vested with significant authority to resolve leadership disputes, as outlined in Section 15(1) of the Cultural Leaders Act 2011. Other relevant legal frameworks for resolving local conflicts include the Constitution of Uganda, the Magistrates Courts Act 2007, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. These laws emphasize the importance of resolving societal disputes outside of formal court systems. Under Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms, conflicts are resolved through processes other than litigation.
Both the Bible and the Quran contain numerous guiding principles for resolving conflicts through ADR. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) encouraged and practiced “tahkim,” the equivalent of arbitration, to resolve various conflicts. Through ADR, Prophet Muhammad was able to avert a serious war over the construction of the Kaaba. Another prophet, Solomon, also employed a form of ADR, albeit in a more extreme situation, to successfully resolve a dispute concerning the parentage of a child.
In legal practice, litigants are encouraged to utilize ADR procedures whenever appropriate to avoid overburdening the courts.
The Constitution of Uganda, in Article 126(2)(e), encourages all Ugandans, including the Bamasaba or Bagisu people as they are referred to in the law, to resolve societal conflicts through ADR to avoid delays associated with conventional court systems.
The advantages of pursuing ADR over conventional court trials include:
- Reduced reliance on lawyers: Individuals can present their own cases without the need for legal representation.
- Simplified procedures: Parties are free to present their perspectives without adhering to strict legal rules of evidence.
- Cost-effectiveness: ADR is generally more affordable than litigation, eliminating expenses related to legal fees, travel, and other associated costs.
- Confidentiality: Many disputes can be resolved confidentially through ADR, unlike public court proceedings.
- Accessibility: ADR promotes access to justice for all, regardless of their economic or social status, as stipulated in Article 126(2)(a) of the Constitution.
Cultural institutions and any aggrieved individuals should actively utilize the principles of ADR to resolve community conflicts. ADR outcomes are legally binding and fully supported by the rules of civil law.
Many courts are reluctant to entertain cases unless it is demonstrated that other ADR mechanisms have been explored, even if with limited success.
I, therefore, encourage the Bamasaba to actively embrace the benefits of Alternative Dispute Resolution in resolving all conflicts, except for capital offenses. The prospect of facing arrest for failing to pay legal fees or court awards is unacceptable. ADR offers a more humane and efficient approach to justice. Let us all embrace it.
The writer is the spokesperson for Inzu ya Masaba and a Masters student of Law.
