THE LUBOGO FRAMEWORK FOR UBUNTU CONSTITUTIONALISM

Added: 2026-05-19

[00:00:02]Thank you very much for giving me yet another opportunity to discuss a very very important subject in the context of uh some theories that I have come to develop through my study of the doctorate of law uh particularly in the subject of or the topic called Ubuntu and the law towards a new constitutional dispensation which I have dubbed the logo framework in terms of Ubuntu constitutionalism.

[00:00:35]One of the fundamental things that we need to do at PhD levels is to develop things that help. So it's a complete uh philosophical but also framework. So there about 20 theories that have helped me to synchronize some of the discoveries if you like discoveries in quot framework as far as constitutionalism and Ubuntu is concerned. So before I examine any of the 20 theories, we must sit in a single unsettling fact. For more than a century, African legal systems have operated under structures that were never designed for African societies. Colonial law did not simply replace indignance law. It suppressed it. It cedu and other communal justice mechanism as informal, supported and lengthy and unauthorized. Then at independence postcolonial constitutions inherited that separation without dismantling it. So the result is a profound and largely unexamined condition. African courts today routinely apply Ubuntu values operationally while remaining simotically a stray from Ubuntu as named constitutional signifier. So in plain English judges do Ubuntu work but cannot say the word Ubuntu. They produce outcomes that are going to constant without ever citing the normative foundation that justifies those outcomes. So this is not a harmless linguistic accident. It's a structural pathology that I cover in terms of identifying what I name the buntu decolonization deficit. The ligo framework is the first comprehensive operationalized multi-judiciary applicable response to that deficit. It comprises 20 original theories, test principles and doctrines evolved between 2024 and 2026 in terms of the writing but go back as far as about 9 to 10 years back and some of them have been supplied now to the international journal of symmetric of law in Colombia human rights law review and also other journals in terms of of humanities like Harvard Law uh rights journal and others in Yale. So the framework is organized in terms of what they call five clusters each addressing a distinct failure of the current law. The cluster one the Ubuntu divis cluster addresses selective position and fragmented accountability.

[00:02:53]Cluster two theability irresability cluster that addresses permanent uh permanent uh nonrich remedies in terms of laws and then others. Cluster 4 for example talks about the semiotic and constitutional cluster that addresses the deepest structural conditions why remains a name in quotes that actually apply uh the values and then cluster five in terms of measurement and diagnostic cluster that provides the tools for audit in terms of all the above. So each theory becomes an original intellectual contribution.

[00:03:24]Together they constitute a unified credential framework that transforms Ubuntu from an ethical memory into constitutional diagn. So a judge can apply it, a lawyer can add it, a citizen can demand it and no reform commission can audit against it. So we may begin with cluster number one. Get ready.

[00:03:42]Listen, as far as cluster number one is concerned, the Ubuntu deficit cluster is what I termed or dubbed as cluster number one. In terms of this, I have generated four theories and these are the ones that I'm going to discuss as follows. The cluster comprises of four interconnected theories emerging primarily from the analysis of selective prosecution in the Karamoja sheets scandal and the conviction of Agnes Nandu. So together they constitute a you know a relational theory of criminal justice accountability grounded in Ubuntu's ontology of relational personhood. The problem that demand that demanded this cluster is when you consider for example the Kamoja iron sheet scandal multiple actors were actually involved in the diversion of iron sheets that were meant for vulnerable communities yet only a few individuals were actually prosecuted.

[00:04:31]Agnesu was convicted others including high level political figures faced no consequences. The prosecution uh did not occur where you know they did not occur where legally valid. The correct procedures were actually followed. The convictions were lawful but something was deeply wrong and that is something that I'm I'm about to reveal. The the wrongness did not lie in any single legal error. It lay in the structure of accountability itself. Collective wrong being was collapsed into individual guilt. Institutional possession disappeared behind procedural you know closure enforment enforcement became narratively selective rather than structurally coherent. So the result was fragmentation disguise as justice and fragmentation as I write is more dangerous than the failure because it still looks like justice. So this condition is what the Ubuntu deficit theory does agonize and the Ubuntu deficit is not a moral observation. It is a credential diagnosis. It identifies the precise point at which the criminal justice outcomes while legally valid fails to achieve rational completeness.

[00:05:35]So the deficit arises when systematic wrongdoing collapses into individual guilt. Institutional causation disappears behind procedure closure and enforcement becomes narrative selective rather than structurally coherent. Now theory number one in terms of the Ubuntu deficit theory would be as follows. The Ubuntu deficit theory provides the foundational diagnosis for the entire cluster. It arges that collective wrongdoing prosecuted selectively produces a structural disintegration of of redational accountability. So the deficit is not a matter of judicial error or procedial prosecution malice through though both may actually be present. It's a structural condition of the criminal justice system itself. So the theory identifies three characteristics features of an Ubuntu deficit. First the systematic wrongdoing is collapsed into individual guilt only the way lowest perhaps or most vulnerable actors acted protected while institutional objects remain untouched.

[00:06:29]Second institutional position disappears behind procedure closure. The state closes as if uh you know each file having prosecuted someone but the full cure claim remains unexamined that the enforcement becomes narratively selective rather than structurally coherent. So the story the state tells about accountability is not a story of how the harm actually occurred. It's a story of who was convenient to prosecute. The theory also transforms a diffuse moral complaint about selective prosecution into a structured constitutional diagnosis. It provides a name for what has actually long been left but never theorized and that prostitution can legally be corrected yet rationally broken. So the buntu deficit is that brokenness. Why this matters for Jewish prudence? Conversion of criminal law theory has no category for for legally valid but rationally incomplete justice. It knows legality and illegality. It knows procedure correctness and procedure error. It does not know fragmentation. Ubuntu deficit therefore introduces a category. It moves justice from a binary to a spectrum. The novel issue raised here is that the theory introduces the concept of rational completeness as a freestanding constitutional requirement.

[00:07:41]It argues that a prosecution that can be lawful and yet constitutionally deficient because it fails the test of of of rational completeness. So this is a generally novel claim in criminal just predest. The lawyers for example in terms of the defense lawyers can gain language to challenge the selective procession beyond conventional equality argument. Courts gain a diagnostic tool the public you know the public gains a a framework to to to demand that justice cannot be merely correct but complete.

[00:08:09]So how is how can it be employed? A lawyer can invoke the Ubuntu deficit theory by demonstrating that the procision, you know, against their client while procedurally correct is rationally incomplete because it omits high level actors, you know, translates the co chain or even substantial relief rather than the moral coherency. Theory two, theory two would be in light of what they call deficit test. You know, the Ubuntu deficit test is an operational instrument of the Ubuntu deficit theory. It is a structured four question test applied analogously to a constitutional opportunity test that ensures that the rational completeness of criminal accountability in any given procession. So the test transforms Ubuntu from an ethical tradition into a constitutional evaluative doctrine capable of testing the moral completeness of a criminal justice itself. Now the test does not ask whether the law was correctly applied.

[00:09:01]It asks whether justice was rationally achieved. The four questions are these and these are important in the context of the discussion that I'm presenting.

[00:09:09]The first is was accountability applied consistently across similarly situate actors. The limb examines whether the procision is selective in ways that cannot be justified by legitimate procedural criteria where similarly placed actors are actually you know traced differently without adequate explanation. So the first limb reveals a deficit. Second was responsibility marked across the full cure chain in terms or or trust at at convenience. So the limp examines whether the prostitution has stopped at the most convenient actor while leaving constitution or even higher level position an examined. So so where the koshure chain is trusted the second li reveals a deficit. Now third does the outcome restore relational balance or even merely conclude a pro you know procision file. The limp examines whether the outcome achieved something meaningful for the for the community harmed or merely allows the state to close its file. So where the outcome produces administrative closure rather than rational restoration, the third limb reveals a deficit. Now in terms of the fourth, does the result produce moral coherency or institutional relief?

[00:10:18]The limb examines whether the outcome makes moral sense to the community affected or whether it serves primarily to the relative to to relieve institutional pressure whether the outcome produces institutional relief rather than the moral coherency and the fourth limb reveals a deficit. So where the answers reveal fragmentation anu deficit is actually established and the outcome is constitutionally suspect even if procedurally flawless. Why this matters for Jewish prince? This this theory what I've dubbed the UDP the UDT gives gives courts a structural framework for evaluating not just legality but relational integrity. It moves open from aspiration to to operation. A judge can now apply the following test just as they apply professionary test as to assess whether a procision has actually achieved relational completeness. So in terms of nobility the novel issue raised here is the test imports the structure of constitutional proportionality analysis into the evaluation of criminal prostitution. So this is unprecedented propality has actually traditionally been applied you know to rights or limitations not to procedure decision.

[00:11:24]So the UDT extends propality tile reasoning into a new domain. So who benefits? Judges can gain a structured framework that disciplines discretion that you know in terms of defense lawyers who gain just test proportionates prosecutor can also gain a self audit tool. Law reform commissions can actually gain a standard against which to evaluate prostitutional patterns. How is it how can it be employed? A lawyer for example representing an accused in a selective prosecution case invokes the UDT and asks the court answer each of the four questions on the record where the state cannot show constituency across similarly you know situated actors the burden shift where for example the casual chain is crossed the court must explain the test transforms a diffused moral complaint into a structured constitutional inquiry now if you argue in terms of theory three what they call the rational criminal justice prudence I would argue in terms of this the rational criminal disputerence is the broadest judial concept in the Ubuntu deficit cluster. It argues the criminal law must evolve beyond methodological individualization into a framework which guilt is not denied but contextualized within the full causal architecture of collective wrongdoing. Justice is no longer about who did the wrong but how but but about how wrongdoing is structurally assembled across institutional relationships. Yes. So this theory will challenge the foundational assumptions of modern criminal law that guilt is an attribute of individual factors you know acting on their own violation. While individual violation remains relevant the theory will argue that much modern wrongdoing in is institutionally structured. So iron sheets are not just for example diverted by a single minister alone.

[00:13:02]They are diverted through a chain of officials approval failures oversight and systematic incentives. So to prosecute only the last actor as in the chain is to misunderstand how the harm does actually occur. So rational criminal justice pre does not you know argue for abolition of criminal law. It argues for the deepening of individual accountability in terms of should not be abandoned. So it's it's contextualized.

[00:13:26]The question is no longer only whether the accused did wrong but how the the wrongdoing relates to the larger pattern of institutional action and even in action. So justice requires that the full architecture of position be examined not tossed at convenience. So why this matters for students? Criminal law theory has actually been be you know denominated or dominated by by methodological individualism for centuries. Rational community gypsis offers a systematic alternative grounded inu ontology for for rational person.

[00:13:55]It's not a mirror adjustment. It is a foundational reorientation in terms of the nobility. The novel is raised here is that the theory raises the question whether criminal guilt can actually be fully determined without examining institutional possession. It challenges the convention of separation between individual criminal responsibility and institutional or even systematic accountability. It argues that these are not separate inquiries but integrated ones. Who benefits? The courts can gain a you know a framework of for understanding complex institutionally structured wrongdoing. Legacy gains a theoretical foundation for criminal law that that that that reaches beyond individual factors. The public gains more accurate account on how harm actually occurs in a complex system. How can it be employed? A court applying rational criminal justice prudence would not stop at inquiry at the individual accused. It would ask what institution and systematic factors you know enabled the wrongdoing. It could demand that procession map the full closure chain not merely identify the convenient culprit. It would treat the absence of institutional accountability as a relevant factor in evaluating the individual guilt. That is fundamentally important. And then the if you argue in terms of theory for what I would argue in terms of the relational accountability theory, relational accountability theory adds that accountability in criminal prostitution, not merely procedure. It is rational selective procision. It's is not just an equity equality problem. It's a relational justice failure that ruptures the the communal bonds of required between the state. So they accused the victim and the wider community. So where accountability is selective is violated structurally. Okay. So the theory argues that that a system that cannot distinguish agency from opportunism, you know, is not cultures. Is not cautious at all. It is blind. It's rational. It's it's rational accountability. It requires the state's enforcement pattern, you know, in terms of coherence with the community's sense of who is accountable and who is and for whom and for what. So the enforcement becomes narratively selective and the state loses its moral authority to punish at all. Yes. So the theory draws on Ubuntu understanding of accountability as the process of restoring broken relationship not merely assigning blame. So under Ubuntu accountability is not only complete when punishment has actually been inflicted. It is complete for example when relationships have actually been repaired. Selective procision cannot repair relationship because it does not address the full pattern of harm. It leaves committee members knowing that accountability was actually partial that some actors were protected while others were actually sacrificed.

[00:16:23]So why this matters in terms of jurisdability theory adds a dimension that conversion accountability theories miss.

[00:16:31]Accountability is usually understood as a matter of announcibility and sanction.

[00:16:37]Relational accountability theory argues that these are sufficient. True accountability must also restore the relational bonds and you know that harm the rapture you know and then aspect the nobility here could be that the the theory introduces the concept of rational restoration as a measure of accountability completeness. So it arges that a position that does not contribute to rational restoration is accountability incomplete even if procedurally correct. So this is a ne standard that that that goes beyond conventional legal measures. Yes. Who benefits? Very important. The victims of collective wrongdoing benefit from a framework that demands accountability for the full pattern of harm, not just isolated actors. Communities benefit from restored relationships. The state benefits from regained moral authority.

[00:17:22]Important as well. How can this be employed? A court applying relational accountability theory would not ask would not only ask whether the accused is guilty but whether the prostitution as a whole contributes to restoring relationship in terms of relational balance in the affected community where selective procution leaves community relationship ruptured for example. So the court would find the accountability process in incomplete and would actually demand remedies beyond individual punishment. Very very important in the context of that wonderful theory. So I will continue by talking about cluster number two. Cluster number two had to do with what they call the irreversibility cluster, the irreversibility cluster.

[00:17:59]And in this particular uh cluster number two, I argue in terms of four theories that I want the world to take serious note of. This cluster comprises of five theories developed across submissions to the Colombia human rights law review to Yale Journal of Law and Humanities, the Harvard Human Rights Journal and the Muido Esset. So together they constitute a new model of constitutional adjudication for cases involving permanent nonred remediable human loss.

[00:18:27]And the problem that that demand this cluster is what I want to argue. Now listen some losses cannot be remedied.

[00:18:34]Okay. No subsequent aquito no appellent correction no constitutional remedy can restore a missed barrier. For example a child who dies while you know a parent is in pre-trial detention cannot be brought back for a second funeral. A medical procedure that that that becomes impossible due to delay cannot be recheduled. A final goodbye that is refused because it cannot be reenacted.

[00:18:57]So these are not merely harmful outcomes. They are final outcomes. So yet conversion of constitutional reasoning treats them as just another factor to be balanced. So speculative risk or or fight is is weighed against certain irreversible harm. This is not balancing. It's blindness. liberal constitutional reasoning as theorized by Dolin and Alexi systematically under theories reversibility the law has actually evolved sophisticated tools for balancing competing interest but has no special treatment of of harm that cannot be you know balanced away because they cannot be remedied. So the irreversibility cluster addresses this blindness and this is the opponent of this particular cluster. So I would argue in terms of the five theories. The first theory will be in the context of of of if not but the principle if not but if not but as a principle the if not but principle is the anchor in terms of this cluster where law produces avoidable irreversible harm despite the availability of less restrictive alternatives. It must explain not only as in its action but to act otherwise.

[00:20:01]The principal function as a counter you know a counterfunctual demand into constitutional reasoning. courts might justify merely what they did but they must be inclined to do what the dignity preserves in terms of preserving an alternative in in inual issue. So the principle gets its name from it structure. If a less restrictive alternative does exist but the state did not adopt it then the state must explain why not. The burden shifts silence is not permitted. The principle is grounded insistence that the law serve human dignity and not merely as its own procedure integrity. Okay. So where dignity preserving alternative is available the state as a failure to adapt it is is a deficit is is a serious deficit. So why this matters for jurisd introduces counter you know counterfactual duty into constitutional adjudication. Courts are accustomed to reviewing what the state did. They they are less accustomed to asking what the state could have done but but choose not to do. So the ifback but principle makes the the counterfactual inquiry mandatory. So no issues in terms of this the principle raises the novel question of whether the state omission can actually be constitutionally insignificant as a state action. So where the state fails to adopt dignity preserving alternative for example that failure is not neutral to omission. It is a positive choice that must be justified. So who benefits? Every person facing state decisions you know that could cause irreversible harm benefits.

[00:21:27]Courts benefit from a clear principle that that guides review of o of of state inaction. So human rights bodies gain a dor tool for evaluating state failures to adopt less restrictive alternatives.

[00:21:39]How can it be employed? A lawyer for example invokes the if but not principle by identifying a you know a dignity preserving alternative that the state could have adopted but did not. So the lawyer then argues that the burden shifts to the state to explain why that alternative was rejected. If the state cannot provide an adequate explanation, the principal establishes a violation and that is fundamentally very important. In terms of theory number six, theory number six would be in terms of the Ubuntu counterfactual test. The Ubuntu counterfacture says is the operational mechanism of the if but not principle. Courts must answer a single diagnostic question. If a less restrictive dignity preserving alternative existed, why why was it not adapted? Silence in the face of the question is itself a violation of the right of human treatment under article 10 sub article one of the international covenant of civil and political rights.

[00:22:29]So the test is named Ubuntu counterfactual because it deres its normative grounding from Ubuntu's account of relational dignity. So under Ubuntu dignity is not merely an attribute of the isolate of the isolated itself. It's constituted through relationships. So a deprivation that serves that surveys relational bond is qualitatively different from the from a deprivation that merely restricts movement. So the counterfactual test captures that difference by asking the state to justify not just the deprivation but the refusal to adapt relationship preserving the alternative fundamentally and extremely important.

[00:23:04]So the test is designed to be simple enough for routine application but regardless enough to produce real accountability. The single question if an alternative existed why was it not adopted? The court must answer silence is a violation. Why this matters in terms of jurisd counterfeit test provides a clear justifiable standard for evaluating state decisions not risk that risk irreversible harm. It does not require complex balancing. It requires answer to a single question. That simplicity is a strength not a weakness.

[00:23:36]So the novelity here that that I'm raising is that the test treats judicial silence as a constitutional violation. A a court that fails to ask the counterfactual question has actually failed in its duty. This is a never expansion of judicial obligation. So who benefits? Detained persons benefit from the test that that that forces court to consider the alternatives. The apparent courts benefit from the clear standard of review. Human rights monitors benefit from a simple diagnostic question. So how can it be employed? A rare, for example, representing a a detained person invokes the Ubuntu counterfeit test by by identifying a less restrictive alternative and demanding that the court answer the why the alternative was actually not adopted.

[00:24:18]And the lawyer who argues that if the court cannot answer or answers inadequately, the detention violates the right of human treatment. Fundamentally important. Then if you argue in terms of theory number seven, the doctrine of irreversible harm. In terms of that aspect, we we are saying that the doctrine of irreversible harm provides the structural reordering that makes counterfactual test meaningful where for example legal deprivation produces a permanent nonreidable loss that forces a human experience that no subsequent judicial order can actually restore. The constitutional balancing exercise must be fundamentally reordered. Speculative risk cannot outweigh certain irreversibility. That is extremely important. And then the doctrine shifts the entire frame of bail and detention dispers from managing speculative risk to preventing a certain permanent loss.

[00:25:06]No subsequent aquito, no apparent correction, no constitutional remedy can restore a missed barrier. The denial is not merely harmful. It is final. Courts must recognize finality as a distinct category within its own way. So under the doctrine of the unusual balancing test, it is actually inverted. So ordinary courts outweigh the risk of flight or danger against the accused interest in terms of liberty. So where the irreversible harm is at stake, the analysis changes. The state must show not merely what is interest is legitimate but also no dignity preserving alternative could actually serve the interest. Pitulative or minor state interest cannot outweigh certain irreversible harm. So why this matters in terms of Jewish poly? The doctrine of reversible harm introduces the hierarchy of harms into constitutional education.

[00:25:55]So not all arms are equal. Harms that cannot be remedied are entitled to greater weight than harms that can be.

[00:26:02]So this is a significant departure from the standard balancing approaches and fundamentally important in terms of jurisance. Now the noity here is that the doctrine raises the question of how courts should should identify irreversible harm and what eventually standard should actually be applied. It also raises the question of whether some state interests are simply too speculative to outweigh certain irreversible harm. So who benefits?

[00:26:24]Every person facing a state decision that could could cause irreversible loss benefits. Family benefits, you know, from knowing that the court would actually take finality in seriously.

[00:26:36]Courts benefit in terms of a clear docal framework. Yeah. And how can it be employed? A lawyer invoking the doctrine of irreversible harm first establishes that the harm at stake is permanent and nonredidable. Yes. And the lawyer then argues that because the harm is irreversible, the use of balancing tech does not apply. Instead the state must show that the dignity preserving alternative could actually serve its interest. So if the state cannot make that strong showing the irreversible harm cannot be inflicted. Now in terms of theory number eight the the argument of irreversibility cautious reasoning.

[00:27:07]The irreversibility cautious reasoning is a new a new mode of constitutional adjudication disting from from supplementary to you know to proportionality analysis. It argues that liberal constitutional reasoning as theorized by Dawkins and and Alexi systematically under theories of itability the law must develop a mode of thought that takes seriously what cannot be undone. So the theory does not abandon proportionality. It supplements it. So before any balancing occurs the the court must identify whether the harm at stake is reversible or inversible. If it is reversible the structure of the analysis changes. The court must engage the inversibility conscious reasoning not merely proportionality reasoning.

[00:27:52]Okay. So irreversibility conscious reasoning requires courts to to to ask the three questions for example before any balancing. First is the potential harm revers ir re irreversible. Second what is the degree of certaintity that this harm will occur if the state acts.

[00:28:07]Third, are there less restrictive onences that would actually avoid the reversible harm entirely or only after answering this question does the court proceed in terms of balancing and even then the weight assigned to irreversible harm is qualitatively different from the weight assigned to reversible harm. So why this matters in terms of proportionality analysis has actually been a dominant mode of constitutional reasoning for decades. So irreversibility in terms of conscious reasoning argues that proportionality alone is insufficient. It must be supplemented by a prior inquiry into the nature of the harm at stake. Now we have to understand the noity here. The novity here is that the theory raises a question of whether courts currently have the the doctrinal tools to distinguish irreversible from irreversible from reversible harm. It argues that they do not. And the new tools must actually be developed. It also raises the question of what evidentially standard should actually apply to claim the aspect of irability.

[00:28:59]Yes. So when so when when who benefits then the courts benefit from a core sophisticated analytical framework.

[00:29:05]Litigants benefit from a model of reasoning that takes finality seriously.

[00:29:09]Legal scholars benefit from a new research agenda. Very important. Now how can this be employed? Courts applying irresability conscious reasoning would begin its analysis not with balancing but with classification. If the hammer steak is reversible or irreversible only after answering that question would the court proceed in terms of profality. So through the analysis the court would give distinct and greater weight of irreversible harms. Okay. Now let me go to theory number nine. In terms of the theory number n it will be what they call the temporal presumption doctrine.

[00:29:42]The temporal presumption doctrine. So the temporal presumption doctrine adds a temporal dimension to the cluster. How?

[00:29:48]The longer the state detains without trial, the weaker its moral authority to dignite temporary, you know, human relief even before mandatory bail thresholds technically crystallize under positive law. Time itself generates a constitutional presumption against a continued exercise of state coercive power. So the doctrine is grounded in constitutional philosophy underpinning mandatory bail provisions and extends that philosophy beyond it technical thresholds. Mandatory bail is not merely a procedure entitlement triggered by time. It is a constitutional warning against the normalization of prolonged pre-trial detentions. Even where the sitic threshold has not been reached, the passage of time weakens the state's moral authority to continue the detention. Fundamentally important. So the doctrine also operates as a slide scale, a sliding scale. So as the at the outset of detention, the state's authority is strongest. As time passes with trial, that authority diminishes eventually even before mandatory bail threshold that can reach the state must show not only that the detention remains lawful but it remains necessary and proportionate. So the presumption does shift. Time creates a burden on the state. Why this matters? The temporal presumption doctrine introduces a time or what they call freestanding constitutional factor. Time is not merely a trigger for statuto entitlement. It's a constitutional variable that affects the weight of state interest and the burden of juris justification in that context. So in terms of the nobility here the doctrine raises the question of what temporal duration triggers in terms of a shift in presumption. It also raises question whether different types of detentions whether criminal whether immigration whether whether mental health have different temporal thresholds. Yes. So who benefits in terms of the long pre-trial detainees? They benefit directly. Courts benefit from a clear temporal framework and legacy benefits from guidance on mandatory bail thresholds which is a fundamental in terms of today's you know occasions around the world but also partially in Uganda. How can this be employed? The lawyer invoking the temporal presumption doctrine would actually you know calculate the duration of the client sitation and argue that the passage of time has shifted the burden to the state. The state must must now show not merely the detention was was initially justified but that it remains justified after the passage of significant time.

[00:32:08]If the state cannot make that showing release is required and that is fundamental in terms of the discussion that I'm presenting as a new dispensation for uh for for the for the subject of criminal law. Now let me argue cluster three. Cluster three has to do with the bail and detention cluster. And in in cluster three I have five theories that I've come up with.

[00:32:27]Now the cluster comprises basically of five theories devolved primarily through the muumbo you know saga in terms of the Ghana jpency some of you know the mu case and and I have presented this before the colombia commission with roots in terms of the treatment of mas as restorative justice so together I'll constitute what they call a relational theory of pre-tri detention that that that challenges individualistic framework for conventional bail jurist prudence for example now let me add you for you the problem that demand this cluster the problem that demand landed this cluster. For example, conversion of bale juice is actually built on on methodological individualism. It asks about the individual accused, you know, in terms of flight risks, in terms of criminal record, ties to the the community, danger to the public. It does not ask about relational harm. He does not ask what pre-trial detention does to the accused student or aging parents or dependents or employees of the committee. He does not even ask about the social rupture that detention causes not just to the individual but the entire web of relationship constituting their personhood. Yes. And and so the dignity on account is not merely an attribute to the isolated isolation itself. It encompasses the relational bonds through which the self is constituted and maintained. A deprivation that serves relational bonds inflicts a you know a dignary harm or as a qualified different kind of of deprivation that must restrict movement.

[00:33:51]So current bail law has no category for this kind of distinction. So the bail and detention cluster addresses this gap. Okay. And that is fundamentally important. If you argue in terms of theory number 10 what what I call the compassion the compassionate bail test.

[00:34:04]The compassionate bail test is a structured form bail assessment to cases involving exceptional human circumstances. For example, where all four limbs are certified, denial of temporary release is presumed unj unjustifiable. The test does not introduce discretion into bay law. It disciplines it providing courts with a structured framework for engaging with relation and dignity dimensions of a pre-trial detention decision. Yes. So I would argue it in terms of the concept of the four limbs that that are in within this concept. The first is whether the event is irreversible such such as a barrier or even a final you know medical procedure. So the limb identifies events that cannot be repeated or remedied. So a missed barrier is a gone forever. A final medication prison that occurs without the accused you know presence cannot be reseted. So these are not ordinary events they are singular irreplaceable human moments. So second is whether their tendency is central to the accused human dignity as a relational you know as relationally constituted for example.

[00:35:03]So the limb asked whether the event is so centered to the accused identity as the you know as a relational being that nonattendance would actually constitute a dignitary harm you know beyond ordinary position. So for a parent for example to miss the child's bar you know of a child is a parent's final moment that harm is not merely emotional it's extential to the relation itself. So the the the the third is whether the whether the risk to the state interest can actually be be you know reactionally mitigated through conditions or you know or escort for example. The point here is that an escorted release or perhaps in terms of escorted or electronic monitoring or perhaps in terms of fixed return dates secure requirements if mitigation is possible denial becomes harder to justify. Then the fourth could be in the context of whether denial would actually result in in disproportionate or even irreversible emotional and dignitary harm. This limb asks the court to weigh the harm of denial against the state of the state interest. So while the harm is both severe and irrible, the state interest must be correspondingly weighed to justify the denial. Why this matters in terms of prudence? The compassionate bail test provides a structured alternative to the unstructured discretion that currently governs bill decisions in exceptional circumstances.

[00:36:18]So judges currently decide whether such you know basis or on intuition or sympathy. So the the test replaces intuition with analysis. So the novity here is that the test introduces the concept of of relational dignity into bale justification or just presence. And it treats it treats the the accused not as an isolated individual but as a person embedded in relationships. So the significance and departure from is significant as a departure from conventional bay law as we know it. So who benefits? The accused person facing exceptional human circumstances benefit directly. Their families benefit. Judges benefit from a structured framework.

[00:36:52]Appellent courts do benefit from a clear standard of review. How is it employed?

[00:36:56]Lawyers for example representing a detained person whose child is dying invokes the compassionate bill test and walk through court through each limb.

[00:37:03]Okay. So the lawyer shows that the event is reversible that the tendency is central to the accuse in terms of relational dignity and that and the state interest can be mitigated and that deny would actually would cause disproportionate or irreversible harm and the court then applies the test and grants release unless the state overcomes the presumption. Now let me take you to theory number 11 in terms of what they call the Ubuntu bail theory.

[00:37:28]This is another component also that we have come up with. The Ubuntu bail theory goes deeper than the compassionate bail test. It argues that bail decisions cannot be constitutionally sound if they ignore the relational dimensions of the accused person their their you know their communal embeddedness their responsibilities to dependence and community and their social rupture that pre-trial detention causes not just to the individual but to the entire web of relationship constituting their personhood. So a deprivation that serve that severance for example relational bone inflicts a a dignitary harm of a a a qualitatively different kind of form from the deprivation that merely restricts movement. The Ubuntu bay theory provides a philosophical grounding for the compassionate bay test. It explains why relational harm matters constitutionally not merely sentimentally. So the theory draws on Ubuntu's conception of personhood. Under Ubuntu a person is not isolated as themselves. A person is a self constituted through relationships. So to survive those relationships is not merely a cause of pain. It's an attack on the very structural person. So B decisions that ignore relational harm are not merely harsh. They are constitutionally blind to what person actually means under Ubuntu. Now when you argue in terms of why this matters in terms of Jewish prudence, the Ubuntu bail theory provides a philosophical foundation of a relational approach to bail. It answers the question why should courts care about relationships? Because under Ubuntu relationships are not optional extras to persons. They are constitutive to personhood. Now why this is a novel issue? The theory raises the question of whether current bail under implicitly assumed you know the current bail implicitly assumes an an automistic conception of personhood. It argues that he does and that this assumption is culturally specific and constitutionally problematic in Ubuntu grounded legal systems who benefit all accused persons benefit from the bail juice prudence that takes that rational that takes rational harm seriously. So legal theorists benefit in terms of a clear articulation of implications in terms of the bail law and law reform benefits from a philosophical foundation in terms of the reform. How can this be employed?

[00:39:37]A lawyer for example invoking the the Ubuntu bail theory argues that that you know conventional bail analysis is incomplete because it ignores rational harm. So a lawyer presents evidence of the accused communal you know embeddedness dependence in terms of community responsibilities in terms of caregiving roles the lawyer then argues that that because dignity under is rational a bail decision that ignores these rational dimensions is constitutionally unsound. Okay and that is fundamentally important. Now in terms of theory number 12 what they call the mido test the mido test is a structured form you know relational bail assessment derived from the constitutional and analysis of the mum situation. So each limb addresses a distinct relational dimension of the of of the detention decisions that that that that conventional bail assessment framework systematically do ignore. So the test is named after the factual situation that inspired it ensuring that the human story behind the theory is not forgotten. Now the followings would actually be the following. First is that what communal and relational harm does pre-trial detentions cause beyond the individual accused. Okay. So these limbs direct the court's attention to the to to the ripple effects of detention.

[00:40:44]Children without a parent, elderly parents without a caregiver, employee without a livelihood, community without a member. Harm is not limited to the accused. Okay. Fundamental. The second would be in the context that it has a state demonstrated you know the second has the state for example demonstrated that detention is proportionate not just individually but rationally you know accounting for communal impacts for example the limb shifts the burden the statement show not only that the decision is proportionate for an individual accused but that it remains proportionate when all relational harm is actually considered and the third will be that there are Ubuntu consonant alternatives to detention that preserve communal relationships while serving the interest of justice. The limb requires a court to consider alternative that uphold Ubuntu values committed based supervision restorative justice processes and even reparative conditions. Now the fourth will be in the context that that does the detention for example decision honor or or rapture their choose dignity as constituted through communal relationship. The limb asked an ultimate question does this decision treat the accused as a person in community or as an isolated atom? fundamental in that context. So why does this matter? Their test is the most comprehensive relational bail test in the framework.

[00:42:00]It addresses communal harm. It shifts the burden to the state. It requires consideration of Ubuntu consent alternatives and ask the ultimate question about dignity. No existing bail test does all these things and that is the reason why I'm making a drum major to adapt that wonderful test. Now the novel is raised here that the test introduces communal harm as a direct a distinct category in bail analysis. It shifts the burden of proof to the state to show how relational proportionality.

[00:42:29]It requires courts to consider Ubuntu consent alternatives not merely conventional bail conditions. So who benefits? Communities benefit from a test that takes communal harm seriously.

[00:42:40]The accused person benefit from a test that asks about their relational dignity. So courts benefit from comprehensive framework. How can it be employed? A lawyer for example invoking the the mu test walks in the court through with all those forms presenting evidence of communal harm challenging the state or to show rational proportionality and proposing Ubuntu consulate alternatives and arguing that the detention decisions are currently structured as as currently structured would rupture the accused relational dignity. And in terms of that I would now add you what I would term theory 13.

[00:43:14]Now the theory 13 has to do what they call procedial uh you know absolutism.

[00:43:18]Procedial absolutism. Now procedial absolutism is the pathology of legal systems that elevate legal form over human substance producing outcomes that are correct in form but catastrophic catastrophic in consequence. So it's identified as a systematic condition not as a judicial failing applicable beyond being law to immigration, detention, mental health, refugee determination, all these areas in terms of that. And now the the legal the aspect here legality without humanity is the diagnosis. So a system that that is correct in form but catastrophic in consequence has actually failed not because its procedures were wrong but because it procedures were applied absolutely. So without regard to human con consequences for example procedure absolism names this failure and provides a framework for for resisting it. So the theory also argues that a procedure absolutism is not inevitable it's a choice through though often unthinking one. Okay. So courts choose to apply procedial absolute rather than contextuality. So they choose to prioritize form over substance. They just choices can can actually be unbear.

[00:44:24]So the theory provides a language and framework for unmaking them. Okay. So why this matters in terms of dishance?

[00:44:30]Procedial absurdism identifies a system condition that legal theory has long noticed but never systematically theorized. So everyone knows that the law can actually be correct in form but catastrophic in consequences. So procedial absolutism gives this condition a name and a diagnostic framework. Now why this is a novel issue? It's a novel issue in the context that the theory raises the the question of whether procedial correctness can never be a free can can never can never be a defense to catastrophic consequences. So it argues that it cannot it it also raises the question of how to distinguish legitimate procedure rigor from pathological absolutism.

[00:45:06]Okay. So who benefits? Every person who suffers catastrophic consequences from formally correct legal decisions benefits. Courts benefit from a framework for recognizing and resisting abolism and no reformers benefit from a diagnostic category. How is it employed?

[00:45:21]A lawyer for example invoking procedure absolutism argues that while the state has actually followed correct procedure the result is catastrophic and that the procedure correctness is not a defense.

[00:45:31]So the lawyer asks the court to recognize that it has a choice between absolutism in terms of or or against humanity and and and to choose humanity in that context. And then I'll argue theory number 14 what I would t the humanitarian release doctrine. So the humanitarian release doctrine grounds the entire cluster in international humanitarian law. Okay. It demonstrates that international human rights law already contains the normative resources for humanitarian release you know as doctrine grounded principles of detention law. Yeah. So what is missing is the doctrinal structure to give those resources effect and and the doctrine provides that that the structure anchored in the ICCPR in terms of article 9 and article 10 the human rights committee's general comment 35 the Nelson Mandera rules and the African charter of human you know human and people's rights. The argument is not that international law should be changed to accommodate humanitarian release. The argument is that international law already requires it. So courts simply lack the doctrinal framework to see what is already there. So the doctrine synthesizes existing international law provisions into a coherent framework for for humanitarian release. When you argue article 9 article 9's guarantees for liberty and even the security of persons. Article 10's guarantees for human treatment. The general comment 35 elaboration in terms of the presumption of of liberty. Nelson mander rules emphasizes on on on the aspect on the on on the lease of restrictive alternative.

[00:46:56]The African charter protection of dignity. So together these provisions require humanitarian release in case of exceptional human circumstances. So why this matters in terms of jurisdance the humanitarian release doctrine transforms humanitarian release from a matter of judicial mer into a matter of international legal obligation. So this is significant shift in terms of mercy is discretionary obligation is not. Now in terms of the nobility the doctrine raises the question of why humanitarian has not been so underutilized you know despite the existence of the relevant international law. Yes provisions. So it argues that the missing element is doctrinal structure not normative content. Now who benefits in terms of the 10 persons? We're arguing that the 10 persons would actually be in exceptional circumstances by the way benefit from the doctrine grounded in international law. So courts benefit from a clear international law framework and human rights bodies benefit from a synthesized doctrine. So these are good takeaways in light of that. How can this be employed? A lawyer for example invoking the human right the humanitarian you know release doctrine cites the ICCPR article 9 and article 10 and the general comment 35 the non mander and the African charter. So the lawyer argues that these provisions read together require humanitarian release in the client's circumstances. And the argument is not that the court should be merciful. The argument is that international law demands release in that context. And that is a fundamental takeaway in terms of these wonderful nostrations that we're talking about.

[00:48:21]I'll now argue in terms of what they call cluster 4. Now cluster four is going to be in the context of what they call the semiotic. Semiotic and constitutional cluster. The sematic and constitutional cluster is another issue that I have come up with as a new theory for the world today and appreciates in terms of three theories. The first is that the the cluster comprises of three theories developed primarily through the smutic article that had I submitted to international journal of smutics of law you know under my doctoral thesis together they constitute a structural diagnosis in terms of absence from Uganda constitutional educos as a normative framework for constitutionalism or constitutionalization if you like. So the problem that that demanded this cluster is as follows and it's very important for our argument here.

[00:49:03]Uganda's courts apply Ubuntu values operationally while remaining symmetrically and strength from Ubuntu as a named constitutional signifier. So they produce outcomes that are Ubuntu consonant without ever citing Ubuntu.

[00:49:16]They speak Ubuntu without knowing its name. This is not a harmless accident.

[00:49:21]No no no no. It's an inherent of colonial legal structures that actively suppressed indignous justice mechanism as informal, subordinate and legally unauthorized. So postcolonial constitutions inherited that suppression without dismantling it. So the result is that it's a structural gap that remains even even after formal independence courts perform the normative work of leaving the sign legally you know inoperative. So this simotic estrangement it is the constitutional pathology that we're talking about. Now in terms of my theory theory number 15 what I would argue in terms of simotic you know estrangement theory simotic estrangement theory distinguishes between Ubuntu's normative content which which which is present and judicially deployable so andu is a constitutional sign. So which is suppressed and institutionally underdeveloped. The theory demonstrate that courts routinely apply values in their reasoning. They emphasize reconciliation, communal harmony, restorative justice for example and relational accountability. But they do not name Ubuntu as the source of these values. So the sign is legally inoperative while the substance is judicially active. So this is simotic instrangement. It is the structural condition. Constitutionalization is the cure. The theory provides a diagnostic framework for identifying and measuring this instrangement. So the theory draws on symmetric legal theory which which examines how legal systems create meaning through signs. So a legal sign is not just a word. It it it is a word embedded in a a a system of meaning. So when Ubuntu presents a normative substance but absent as a legal sign the system is inrained from itself. It's not doing work without Ubuntu authority. So why this matters in terms of due prudence? Simotic estrangement as a theory provides the first systematic account of why Ubuntu remains absent from Uganda constitutional discourse despite being judicially deployed in substance. It identifies a structural condition, not a series of individual judicial failures.

[00:51:23]Now this is novel in the context that the theory raises the question of whether a legal system can actually be said to include a value, you know, or a value if the value is not named. It argues that it cannot. Naming matters and signs is not decorative. It is constitutive. Okay. So who benefits?

[00:51:40]Constitutional drafters begin benefit from understanding this dimension of constitutional inclusion. Courts benefit from understanding the significance of naming Ubuntu. Legal theories do benefit from symmetric framework of analyzing constitutional values very very important in the context of my discussion as another uh gift to the world if you like. How can this be employed? the scholar or even a law you know reform commissioner applying symmetric you know infringement the theory would benefit in what I call audit judicial decisions to identify cases where values are applied without Ubuntu being named so the audit would actually provide empirical evidence of estrangement forming the basis of recommendations to name Ubuntu explicitly okay and that's very important now if I take you to theory number 16 in terms of the argument of Ubuntu decolonization def deficit the Ubuntu decolonization deficit theory explains The origin of the symmetric estrangement colonial legal structures did not merely ignore. They actively suppressed it as a legal sign coding indigenous justice mechanism as informal, subordinate and even legally unauthorized. The deficit is the structural gap that that it remains.

[00:52:44]Okay. And and and and postcolonial constitutions inherited colonial simotic exclusion without dismantling them.

[00:52:50]Okay. Constitutional renewal must address the deficit explicitity not not as historical commentary but as a program a program of active structural repair. The theory transforms decolonization from historical claim into a constitutional into a continual obligation. The work of decolonization is the work of dismantling colonial semiotic structures that persist in independent constitutions. Okay. So the theory also argues that that decolonization is incomplete or political decolonization happened. Okay.

[00:53:21]So legal decolonization did not the the the legal system still operates within colonial categories. Colonial exclusion, colonial silences absence from the constitutional sign system is not a neutral omission. It is an active exclusion inherited from colonial law.

[00:53:35]And that is something also why we need to address that. Now why this matters in terms of your students? Ubuntu decolonizes deficit provides a historical and structural explanation of Ubuntu's absence. It moves the conversation from blame to repair. So the question is not who fought this. The question is who how to fix this. That is the most important aspect. Now the nobility raised here is that the theory raises the question of whether postcolonial constitutions can actually be considered fully legitimate and if they retain colonial inclusions. This argues that they cannot. Legitimacy requires not only independence but also decolonization. of of the legal sign system itself. So who benefits? All citizens for example in terms of all post uh colonial African states for example they benefit from the legal system that has actually completed the work of decolonization. So constitutional drafters benefit from a clear framework of addressing these colonial exclusions. How can this be employed? A constitutional drafter, for example, applying the Ubuntu deolonization deficit would audit the existing constitution for colonial exclusions, identifying Ubuntu's absence as a colonial, you know, as a colonial inheritance and propose textual and institutional remedies to dismantle that what that exclusion. Now, in terms of my my theory, theory number 17, I would argue in terms of the Ubuntu constitutional dispensation theory. Yes.

[00:54:49]And under this Ubuntu constitutional expensation theory, it provides the remedy a new constitutional dispensation for Uganda and by extension for African constitutionalism broadly. So it requires not merely textual amendment but a fundamental reorientation of the constitutional science system. Obuntu must become named judicially operationalized, institutionally supported and culturally grounded in terms of constitutional value. Now a constitutional dispensation is not new because it changes text. It is new because it changes the sign through which the law constitutes itself and and its people. So the the macro theory that ties the the entire lubo framework together and provides its normative you know destination all 19 other theories are instruments of achieving this dispensation and that is the point that that I'm trying to make as far as this global framework is concerned the theory you know specifies four dimensions of a full Ubuntu constitutional dispensation.

[00:55:45]First, the naming of Ubuntu must appear explicitly in the constitutional text.

[00:55:49]Second, operationalization course must have doctrines and tests that apply Ubuntu. Third, institutional support, judicial training, court rules and guidelines must reflect Ubuntu. Fourth, cultural grounding. The constitution must be intelligible and legitimate to to the communities it governs. Yes. So why this matters in terms of openu constitutional dispensation as a theory provides a comprehensive framework for constitutional transformation. It goes beyond textual amendment to address institutional and culture dimensions. It is not a theory of incremental reform.

[00:56:19]It is a theory of fundamental uh change in that context. So in terms of the nobility, we could argue that the theory raises the question of what constitute a constitutional dispensation as distinct from constitutional amendment. It argues that the dispensation involves a sign system transformation not merely a text change. It the novel claim is constitutional theory in this perception. And and who benefits? The entire nation does benefit from this constitutional dispensation that reflects its foundational values. Yes.

[00:56:48]So constitutional drafters gain a comprehensive framework and courts gain legitimacy and and citizens also gain a constitutional that speaks that speaks to their in terms of their normative language in in that in that perspective.

[00:57:01]So when you argue that how can this be employed the constitutional assembly applying the Ubuntu constitutional expression theory would actually not simply add Ubuntu to the legs. It will actually develop a comprehensive plan for naming operizing and and institutional support and cultural grounding. The result will actually be a constitution that not only is legally effective but culturally legitimate in that context. And that is another wonderful takeaway for the framework that is provided for the disciplines of this country and other countries. Now in terms of cluster five, cluster five is basically an argument in terms of the measurement and diagnostic cluster. I I I I I labeled this as the measurement and diagnostic cluster. And in these I have three theories that are propounded in terms of the dispensation that I'm talking about this evening. This cluster comprises of three theories developed through the train analysis or dispensation that I've been doing at at my PhD level or doctoral level in that case. Specifically under chapter 4 the analysis in terms of the 45 cases that analyze so together they constitute an empirical analytical infrastructure through which the presence in terms of proximity or absence in terms of judicial decision making can actually be systematically measured and even evaluated. Now the problem in terms of that I would argue in terms of what they call the problem that demanded this cluster. The problem that demanded this cluster is is premised of the fact that a framework is not only useful as its ability to be measured. If Ubuntu constitutional cannot be audited, it cannot be improved. If judges and scholars cannot tell whether a decision reflects Ubuntu values or violates them, the framework remains theoretical rather than actually operational. So the measurement and diagnostic cluster solves that problem and and that's very important in terms of the discussion. It provides an empirical and analytical infrastructure infrastructure in terms of systematic evaluation. So this is the first systematic geometics if you like of Ubuntu and this is fundamental in the context of this discussion. Now theorem 18 would be argued in terms of what they call the Ubuntu divided index. So the Ubuntu divided index is a criteria based on racial measurement as a tool that scores the degree of which court's reasoning reflects Ubuntu values. It's applied across all the 45 cases that I carried out in terms of judicial decision in my doctoral thesis and also in terms of the index that produced in terms of structural assessment that allows systematic comparisons across judicial over a period of time. So the index does not merely describe what courts have actually done. It measures the distance between what they did and what Ubuntu demands. So me as Isaac one of the most original analytical contribution in terms of African jurometric if you like is this particular one. So a C cannot be given a score jurisdiction can can be compared to another progress can actually be tracked over a time. So the index that I propose uses multiple criteria drawn from Ubuntu normative content, relational reasoning, communal consideration, restorative registration, dignitary attention and procedial humanity. So each criterion is scored on a scale. The score are aggregated into an overall index score. The result is qualitative measure of Ubuntu's presence in judicial reasoning. I've got about 2 minutes to conclude. Bear with me. So why this matters in terms of prudence?

[01:00:03]The Ubuntu divided index transforms Ubuntu from a matter of judicial intuition into a matter of empirical assessment. A scholar can now say with data that 60% of decisions are concerned but only 10% are explicit and this is not speculation. It is a measurement. So in terms of nobility the index raises the question of whether can actually be identified. It argues that while is not reducible to numbers its presence in terms of judicial reason can actually be meaningfully squad. So this is a methodological claim with significant implication in terms of legal research.

[01:00:36]Who benefits? The legal scores for example gain a lot of research methodology in terms of this and also law reform commission can actually again audit as a tool. Okay, they can audit as a tool and judicial training also institutes again a baseline for for measuring uh training effectiveness and also citizen can transparency in that aspect. And how can this be employed? A researcher can actually apply the the Ubuntu dividend index selecting a sample of judicial decisions scoring each decision against the criteria aggregates the scores and then produces an index score for the jud for for the jurisdiction or even a period of time.

[01:01:08]Yes. And the score can actually be compared across jurisdiction or even tracked over time to measure the progress fundamental and very important.

[01:01:15]Now theory number 19 I said we have 20.

[01:01:17]So we're number 19. We have only two to go. The theory would be argued in terms of the three category typology. The three category typology is the the classificatory architecture applied across all the 45 cases in the doctrine thesis. So every judicial decision is classified into into one of these categories. For example, explicit Ubuntu describe decisions where courts name and deploy Ubuntu as a constitutional value.

[01:01:39]So these you know these are the the rare cases where the sign and the substance align. So the court says Ubuntu and applies Ubuntu. There is no instrangement. Now in terms of Ubuntu consonant outcomes describes decisions where courts produce Ubuntu aligned result without naming the value. So you know there are cases of systemic orotic estrangement the substance is present but the sign is suppressed. So the court that does Ubuntu work without Ubuntu authority and then the aspect of Ubuntu absent harm that describes decisions where courts produce outcomes that actively rupture Ubuntu's rational norms. They are not cases where the deficit becomes harm. The the court can can only fail to apply values but actively violates them. Okay. So the the the typological reviews that the Ugandan courts have actually not been silent about Ubuntu values. They have actually been speaking Ubuntu without knowing its name. Okay. So most decisions fail into the Ubuntu category. So explicit Ubuntu is rare. Ubuntu absent harm is so relatively rare but significant where it does occur. So why this matters in terms of jurisperience? The three category typology provides a nuisance alternative to binary assessment of Ubuntu presence.

[01:02:52]Instead of asking whether Ubuntu is present or absent, the typology asks what kind of presence or absence and this allows for more you know sophisticated analysis in terms of that.

[01:03:01]The nobility here is the is the context of the typology it raised because the typology here raises the question of whether coant outcomes without explicit naming are sufficient or whether naming is required. It argues that while constant outcomes are actually valuable, they they are incomplete. Okay. So full constitutionalism requires explicit naming. Okay. So who benefits? Legal scholars, for example, gain in terms of classificatory framework. And then courts can also gain self-awareness about their own reasoning patterns. Law reform, you know, gains a diagnostic tool for identifying this kind of what infringement. Now, how can this be employed? The researcher may apply the the three category typology in reading each judicial decision and classifies it based on whether the Ubuntu is name or whether the outcome is constant with Ubuntu values or whether the outcome actively ruptures Ubuntu norms. So, so the resulting distribution provides a picture of Ubuntu's presence in the jurisdiction. Okay. Now I'm now going to category theory number 20 which idea should be last. So it's it's called the Bat for Ubuntu test. The B for Ubuntu test. The B for test completes the cluster. Yeah, this is a causation style constitutional test mode on the common law but for test in negligence elevated constitutional prudence. It asks single diagnosis questions in any legal proceeding or constitutional analysis.

[01:04:22]You know, but for the absence of Abuntu values in this in in in this decision in this institution or perhaps in this legal provision would would this harm injustice or accountability failure have occurred where the answer is no. A constitutional deficit is actually established and remedial intervention is actually justified. So the test imposts the familiar B for causation standard from tot law into constitutional dispersence. The in total the B for test ask whether the harm would have actually occurred but for the defendants breach.

[01:04:54]Here the test asks whether the harm would have occurred but for the absence of values. So if the harm would have occurred anyway the absence of Ubuntu is not a coou significance. If the harm would not have occurred but but the absence of Ubuntu a constitutional deficit is then established. That is very important. So the test transforms a philosophical claim about importance into an empirical question about causation. This is not speculation. It is possession analyze important from total and elevated into constitutional education and that is fundamental and why this matters in terms of usefulness.

[01:05:27]The B for Ubuntu test provides a clear justifiable standard for establishing that a particular outcome is attri attributable to the absence of Ubuntu.

[01:05:37]It borrows from the well established legal doctrine and adaps it into a new context. The result is the test that is both rigorous and also familiar. Now the issue the novelity here in terms of an issue would be the test raises the question of whether causation analysis can actually be applied to the absence of a value. It argues that it can and by treating the absence of as a constitution as a counterfactual condition. This is a novel extension in terms of the causation doctrine. So who benefits? Courts begin you know can gain a clean test for establishing Ubuntu deficits. Liticans gain just for standards and law reformers can gain a diagnostic tool for identifying causial real you know relationship between Ubuntu absence and and and and harmful outcomes. In terms of employment we are saying that a lawyer can invoke the B for Ubuntu test and ask the court to consider the whether the harmful outcome would have occurred if Ubuntu values had actually been present. If the court concludes that the outcome would have actually been different then the lawyer argues that the constitutional deficit is established and remedy is actually required and that is a very very important aspect in the context of what I just presented. So listen the the reason why I am making this being a drum major in terms of this is the context of preservation for those who are coming after us or those who are already in the system. The preservation of now and the future the preservation you know as a mechanism you know of of certain things are already in place. So the Lago framework is already preserved through multiple mechanisms operating in parallel. First for example we could argue in terms of official intellectual property record which was dated which is actually dated April 2026 published by sujenous publishers in compala. So every one of the 20 theories is actually recorded in its definition in terms of key formulation but also in terms of a source document. And the second is that the framework is actually embedded in five separate peer-reviewed journal submissions to the international journal for symmetric of law, the Colombia human rights law review, the Yale Journal of Law, the and humanities, the Harvard human rights journal and the East African law journal. Peer review is a gold standard for sch preservation. So the third is the context that the framework is actually anchored on ongoing doctoral thesis at M University Law School as an academic institution worth of permanent achieo uh achievable infrastructure. And then the fourth is in the context that the framework is actually published in in open sources through sujenous publishers ensuring that no uh you know pay wall prevents access to courts. So lawyers, scholars or citizens of Uganda and across across Africa can actually engage this particular uh this particular dispensation in terms of the the goal framework. Now in terms of future preservation, I would recommend that the judicial uh first of in terms of judicial citation through Uganda judiciary should actually be encouraged to adopt the goal framework as a formal sentencing and and bail guideline ensuring that the 20 doctrines become part of the routine judicial practice.

[01:08:25]And then second law schools and curriculum could actually integrate them. The 20 doctrines could actually be taught in constitutional law or criminal law or criminal procedia. And then in terms of courses at at different universities in the country and and other law schools and around the world.

[01:08:40]And then the third is the legislative reference. The Ubuntu visited and and the compassionate bail test should actually be incorporated into new Uganda bail guidelines. UK bail guidelines and the criminal procedure code amendments currently under consideration. And then I would argue in terms of the fourth that dign it would be actually wise to digitally archive this. The framework should actually be deposed in African court on human and people's rights digital library and the Uganda law reform commission archive and the you know the social science research network for permanent digital preservation. And then fifthly in terms of translation the the 20 doctrines should actually be translated into languages like Uganda Swahili Lueso for the committee in terms of legal education ensuring that the framework belongs not only to the lawyers but also the people whose lives it's meant to preserve or to serve in that context and how does this how is this relevant in terms of the future benefits I'm I'll be quick to add that in in the next five years for example the first Ugandan court of appeal decision citing compassionate bay test as a binding Russian is likely to appear and and this is something that we are making you know being a drum major for perhaps in the 10 years to come the dividend index may actually be adapted as a as a continental metric for the African commission on human and people's right and then maybe who knows in the next 20 years the if principle may actually be incorporated in the African charter in terms of charter's interpretation protocol for irreversible harm cases and and then who knows in the next 50 years or so thego framework will will be part of the African you canonical juices taught alongside South African cases like S versus in terms of judgment as operationalized in terms of the BU framework that has transformed a philosophical tradition into constitutional diagnostic tool and these are fundamentally important in terms of the future. So we we excited from Su Jes we are grateful to God for having given us the grace and the opportunity to come up with these wonderful uh invasions if you like in terms of scholarism. So the point here as a closure is that the law is not rigged. It is rendered rigged by the timidity of its interpreters and and and and so the the aspect here is that the logo framework that in terms of Ubuntu constitutionalism is an invitation to courage. It offers 20 original doctrines tested through peer review grounded in doctrinal research and organized into five clusters. It diagnizes the deficit. It provides tests to measure. It offers remedies to chewies. It gives courts a structured framework for irreversible harm. It gives detained persons a decent basis for compassionate release. It gives constitutional drafters a theory of simotic transformation. It gives schers and law reformers an empirical methodology for measuring's presence in judicial reasoning. And fundamentally this framework does not ask Africa to abandon modernity. It ask modernity to remember that law was never meant to be rigged. It asked Africa legal systems to complete the work of decolonization by restoring Ubuntu as a named judiciary operationalized institutionally supported and culturally branded constitutional value. It asks Scott to justify not only what they do not but what they refuse to do. It ask all of us to recognize that some harms are reversible and that law must develop a mode through that takes seriously what cannot be undone. So when law forgets humanity, it does not become stronger.

[01:11:57]it becomes irrelevant. So logo framework is a reminder you know and a toolkit if you like. It's a record of what has been theorized. It's a map for what must be done. It's an invitation to every judge, every lawyer, every law student, every citizen, every future generation to complete work that colonial law left unfinished. I so thank you very much. My name is Isaac Christo. Find us a generous. God bless you.