Few legal symbols have enjoyed universal reverence like Lady Justice. Draped in flowing robes, balancing a scale in one hand, wielding a sword in the other, and blindfolded across the eyes, she stands as the eternal embodiment of the rule of law. Every court building, legal institution and faculty of law proudly adorns her image as the ideal towards which every legal system should aspire.
Yet beneath this celebrated symbolism lies a haunting contemporary question, Is Lady Justice still blind, or has she begun to see?
This question transcends artistic symbolism. It strikes at the very heart of constitutionalism, judicial independence, equality before the law, and public confidence in the administration of justice. If justice has become selective, if wealth, political influence, ethnicity, gender, status or power determine judicial outcomes then Lady Justice has not merely lifted her blindfold, she has become an active participant in inequality.
This article critically examines the historical origins of Lady Justice, the philosophical significance of each element of her imagery, and evaluates whether Uganda’s legal system continues to embody those ideals. Through constitutional analysis, judicial precedent, legal scholarship and practical realities, the article argues that while Uganda’s judiciary has recorded commendable milestones in constitutional adjudication, several institutional and political realities increasingly suggest that Lady Justice occasionally peers beneath her blindfold.
Lady Justice traces her ancestry to ancient civilizations.
The Greeks personified justice through Themis, the Titan goddess of divine order, law and morality. Unlike the modern depiction, Themis was not blindfolded. She represented wisdom, foresight and natural law.
The Romans later transformed Themis into Justitia, who became the official symbol of judicial authority. Interestingly, early Roman representations equally lacked the blindfold. The blindfold emerged much later during the Renaissance, around the sixteenth century.
Ironically, the earliest artists introduced the blindfold as satire. It mocked judges who deliberately ignored truth. However, legal philosophers gradually transformed this satire into a noble ideal. The blindfold came to symbolize impartiality.
Today each element carries profound jurisprudential meaning, the blindfold represents impartiality, the scales represent balanced evaluation of competing evidence, the sword signifies the authority of lawful enforcement and the flowing robes denote dignity and institutional independence.
Together these elements communicate a singular constitutional aspiration: justice must neither know nor care who stands before it.
As Lord Hewart famously observed in R v Sussex Justices, ex parte McCarthy (1924), “Justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.”
The legitimacy of every legal system depends not only upon correct decisions but also upon public confidence that such decisions were reached without favour.
The blindfold embodies one of the oldest legal principles in civilization;
Equality before the law. Its philosophical roots stretch from Aristotle through Cicero, Aquinas, Locke and Dicey. Aristotle argued in Nicomachean Ethics that justice consists in treating equals equally while accounting for relevant differences through reason rather than personal preference.
Centuries later, A. V. Dicey elevated equality before the law into one of the cardinal principles of constitutional democracy. No individual, regardless of office, should enjoy privileges beyond ordinary law.
John Rawls, in A Theory of Justice, developed the “veil of ignorance.” Society, he argued, should design legal institutions as though decision-makers knew nothing of their future social position. Rawls’ veil of ignorance mirrors Lady Justice’s blindfold.
The law ought not recognize whether one is rich or poor, president or peasant, minister or prisoner, soldier or civilian and majority or minority. Only facts and law should matter.
Similarly, Ronald Dworkin insisted that governments must treat every citizen with equal concern and respect. The blindfold therefore represents constitutional morality rather than physical blindness.
Uganda’s constitutional architecture embraces the philosophy of blind justice. The Constitution guarantees equality before and under the law (Article 21), the right to a fair hearing (Article 28), judicial independence (Article 128), access to justice and protection of fundamental rights.
Article 126 particularly declares that judicial power derives from the people and shall be exercised in conformity with law and with the values, norms and aspirations of the people.
These provisions envision courts as neutral arbiters insulated from political and economic influence. The Constitution therefore places the blindfold firmly upon Lady Justice.
The practical question is whether institutions have left it there.
Uganda’s judiciary has on numerous occasions demonstrated remarkable independence. These are moments when Lady Justice truly appeared blind.
In Paul Kawanga Ssemogerere vs Attorney General SCCA No. 1 Of 2002, the Constitutional Court reaffirmed constitutional supremacy and restrained executive excesses by insisting that governmental action must remain subject to constitutional limitations.
In Major General David Tinyefuza v. Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 1 of 1996) [1997] UGCC 3, the Supreme Court reaffirmed judicial review over military actions and clarified constitutional boundaries regarding separation of powers. Justice Kanyeihamba emphasized that constitutional supremacy extends to every organ of government.
The decision remains one of Uganda’s strongest affirmations that no authority is above the Constitution.
In Andrew Karamagi & Another v Attorney General (Constitutional Petition No. 5 of 2016) [2023] UGCC 2, the Constitutional Court emphasized that constitutional rights cannot be sacrificed merely because doing so appears administratively convenient. The decision reinforced judicial willingness to scrutinize executive conduct.
Despite constitutional safeguards, numerous realities suggest selective justice, this is when Lady Justice appears to peek beneath the blindfold.
Political Prosecutions, opposition politicians frequently face rapid arrests, multiple charges and prolonged criminal proceedings. Meanwhile allegations involving politically connected individuals often progress more slowly or never reach judicial determination.
Although every prosecution cannot automatically be presumed politically motivated, unequal prosecutorial patterns inevitably affect public confidence.
The principle of equality before the law appears strained.
Bail Jurisprudence, the Constitution recognizes bail as part of personal liberty rather than executive generosity. However, practice increasingly reflects inconsistency.