Summary of Initial Records Meeting

LEMU and Soroti Police

Soroti Police Station
12 October, 2010

Parties present:
Takwana Fred, LEMU- Soroti Office
Akin Jeremy, LEMU Consultant (Fulbright Researcher)
Othira Stella, Land Desk Detective, Soroti Police (D/W/CPL)
Phone contact: 0772-575-806

“Letter of Introduction: Jeremy Akin, LEMU Consultant” given to Deputy Police

Commander and Othira Stella. Three copies were stamped “Received” and Fred,
Jeremy, and Stella each retained one.

Fred and Jeremy explained LEMU’s interest in examining the Police Station’s case files
to see how usable data on land cases might be extracted. Stella brought forth 2 files as
demonstrations (these included handwritten statements, photocopies of court notices,
and photographs of land in question).

These documents were often illegible, but it was clear that the cases Stella (who is in
her 2nd month of work at the Land Desk) showed fall under 5 main offenses:
1. Criminal Trespass
2. Malicious Damage
3. Threatening Violence
4. Disobedience of Lawful Order
5. Illegal Land Sale (Fraud)

In the month of September, 5 cases had been reported to the Land Desk, each of which
fell under “Criminal Trespass.” All but one were still under inquiry (“UI”), with the
exception having been referred to the clan for resolution.

What is recorded in a given file:

 Statement of both Complainant and Accused
 Demographic Info
o Gender
o Occupation
o Age
o Nationality/Tribe
o Local Residence
 Court Judgments/Notices

What is not recorded in a given file (at far as LEMU can tell):
 Current status of the case
What may or may not be recorded (not enough cases reviewed to determine):
 With cases filed apart from the Land Desk: Is land (or land rights) a core issue of
the dispute in which the offense was committed?
o How do we determine if land was a core issue vs. periphery issue?

What LEMU learned about the process of case intake:

 The aspect of ownership is paramount.
o If no proof of ownership, cases are referred to the clan or civil courts in
order to determine rightful ownership of the land in question.
 This proof/evidence can be in the form of clan member/elder
testimony, documents (including CCOs and court judgments)
o If proof of ownership exists, cases are taken to criminal court.
 The police dept. forwards parties’ initial statements to the Resident State
Attorney (RSA) for advice if a case is being considered for clan adjudication.
o If the case is referred to the clan, the clan chairman must then give an
account as to how the case was handled.

When Jeremy asked Stella about what challenges she sees (ie, to help identify areas of
need for research purposes), she indicated that court orders are often not being
enforced, and that it would be good to have data that quantifies this gap in the
administration of justice.

Potential research questions:

1. Is sending a case back to the clan effective? Are these mediations successful?
What are the characteristics of a successful case?
2. Does the data show a lack of enforcement of court orders? What is the
percentage of court orders that are actually upheld by the parties involved one
year later?
a. Are there any instances of repeat-reporting over time (ie, a dispute
resolved by a court order which a party refuses to honor)?
i. If so, how are these cases handled?
3. What is the number of cases treated as criminal matters vs. civil/clan matters?
a. Which avenue seems to have more success in terms of
agreements/orders upheld?
4. Compare mediations done using the PPRR book vs. mediations done without to
see if PPRR is really making a difference in terms of successful resolutions.
a. “Successful” defined as upheld by both parties one year later.