By: Wampa Emmanuel. K
The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” rings as a timeless warning that justice which is not timely is often justice not delivered at all. This principle is not merely rhetorical but embodies the very soul of legal systems worldwide. At the heart of every legal order is the promise that citizens will have access to justice within a reasonable time. When this promise fails, the consequences are severe, not only for individuals, but also for the legitimacy of the justice system itself. This reality is most pronounced in systems where delays in adjudication are habitual, often transforming courts from havens of fairness into instruments of oppression, and institutional decay.
The phrase itself is widely attributed to the British Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone, reflecting a universal legal truth. The notion finds deep roots in the common law tradition and resonates across global legal cultures. In modern jurisprudence, timely justice is enshrined in multiple international human rights instruments. Article 14(3)(c) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), for example, guarantees every person the right “to be tried without undue delay.” Similarly, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights under Article 7(1)(d) mandates the right to be tried within a reasonable time by an impartial court. Despite these protections, courts across continents are clogged with backlogged cases, procedural technicalities, and bureaucratic inertia that often deny victims and accused persons their day in court.
The consequence of delayed justice manifests in multiple domains. In criminal matters, an accused may languish in pre-trial detention for years without being convicted, effectively suffering punishment before guilt is established. In civil matters, delay can mean the irreversible erosion of property rights, prolonged psychological trauma, and broken families. In commercial litigation, businesses are left in limbo, and investors flee jurisdictions where legal outcomes are uncertain. In environmental and social justice cases, communities continue to suffer harm while their cries for justice are suspended in endless proceedings.
A telling example of systemic delay comes from India, whose legal system, though one of the largest in the world suffers from a staggering backlog. As of 2024, over 50 million cases were pending across Indian courts. In the case of Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979) the Supreme Court of India took judicial notice of thousands of under-trial prisoners who had been detained for periods longer than the maximum sentence they would have received if convicted. The Court held that the right to a speedy trial is implicit in the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. This decision led to the release of many who were detained unlawfully, yet decades later, the underlying problem persists.
Similarly, in Nigeria, justice delay has been criticized as a major failing of the system. In Abacha v. Fawehinmi (2000), the Supreme Court of Nigeria acknowledged the importance of international human rights instruments in interpreting the Nigerian Constitution, which includes the right to fair hearing and timely justice. Yet, courts continue to be plagued by adjournments, understaffing, and outdated infrastructure. Many citizens experience the justice system as a distant, inaccessible, and punishing force rather than a source of redress.
The Ugandan legal system also exemplifies these challenges. Despite commendable legal frameworks such as the Judicature Act, Magistrates Courts Act, and Article 28 of the 1995 Constitution, which provides for a fair hearing within a reasonable time, practical delays are endemic. The prisons are overcrowded, with many detainees awaiting trial far beyond legal limits. The Human Rights Enforcement Act of 2019 provides for individual redress when constitutional rights are violated, yet enforcement remains sluggish. In Uganda Law Society v. Attorney General (2009), the High Court noted that delays in adjudication compromise access to justice and breach constitutional guarantees, but the systemic reforms required to solve these delays have largely been cosmetic or underfunded.
Beyond national systems, international courts are also not immune. The International Criminal Court (ICC), despite its lofty mandate, has been accused of inordinate delays in prosecuting cases. The trial of Laurent Gbagbo, former president of Côte d’Ivoire, dragged on for years before his eventual acquittal in 2019. The delay in dispensing justice not only undermined victims’ faith in international accountability but also damaged the Court’s reputation and political legitimacy in Africa. Likewise, the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, though crucial in shaping international criminal law, were marked by long procedural timelines, prompting questions about efficiency and the balance between procedural fairness and expeditious justice.
The structural causes of delay are multifaceted. These include lack of judicial manpower, corruption, outdated procedural laws, inadequate legal aid services, poor case management systems, political interference and many others. In many African countries, judicial officers are underpaid, under-resourced, and overburdened. Cases are adjourned repeatedly for lack of witnesses, documents, or even fuel to transport inmates from prisons to courtrooms. Even when judgments are delivered, enforcement is another labyrinth. Thus, justice delayed becomes not only justice denied but also justice disrespected.
Reforms to address these problems have been attempted in many jurisdictions, often with mixed success. The United Kingdom introduced the Criminal Procedure Rules and Civil Procedure Rules aimed at streamlining trials and reducing backlog. Kenya introduced the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act and implemented digital court systems under the Judiciary Transformation Framework. Uganda has piloted plea bargaining schemes to reduce pre-trial detainees and expanded use of virtual hearings. However, these measures cannot succeed in the absence of strong political will, and financial investment.
The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is particularly rich on the right to a fair hearing within reasonable time, protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Buchholz v. Germany (1981), the Court held that delays of several years breached Article 6 rights and imposed financial damages on the state. In Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland (1983), a three-year delay in a compensation claim was held to violate the applicant’s right. Such rulings reinforce that timely justice is not a luxury but a legal obligation.
Justice is the cornerstone of peace, equality and governance. When delayed, it can spark public outrage, promote vigilante justice, or fuel political instability. The recent protests across the globe, whether related to police brutality, gender-based violence, or land evictions, often arise not merely from the absence of law, but from the perception that the law is not functioning swiftly or fairly. In such contexts, the failure of justice systems becomes an accelerant for civil unrest and social decay.
The maxim “justice delayed is justice denied” is not just a principle, it is a demand. It calls upon legislatures to revise archaic laws, upon executives to fund the judiciary adequately, and upon judges to prioritize diligence and efficiency. It is a summons to society to reimagine justice not as a distant verdict but as a timely shield. When courts act with urgency, victims are healed, wrongs are redressed, and faith in the rule of law is restored. When they stall, the gap between law and justice becomes a chasm, one that swallows the hopes of the innocent and empowers the guilty. The price of delay is not measured merely in time lost, but in trust broken, and dignity denied. The time for justice, always, is now.
The writer is a 2nd year student at Nkumba University School of Law and Secretary Nkumba University Research Club.
Reach him at; +256779816870, ewampa7@gmail.com
Discussion about this post