The Third Witness
The Digital Public Square: When the People Began Seeking Justice Before the Crowd
“The voice of the people is often the first signal that institutions must examine themselves.”
Beloved,
History teaches that every generation discovers its own public square.
There was once the village beneath the great tree.
There was the marketplace where elders settled disputes before assembled neighbours.
There came the newspaper.
Then the radio.
Then television.
Today, another public square has emerged.
It possesses no walls.
It knows no closing hour.
It recognises neither geography nor rank.
It is carried within the pockets of millions.
It is called social media.
Whether we welcome it or lament its influence, we cannot honestly deny its power to shape public conversations about justice.
A New Forum Without Formal Jurisdiction
The digital public square pronounces no legally binding judgments.
It issues no warrants.
It cannot imprison.
It cannot award damages.
It cannot compel witnesses to testify.
Yet it possesses something no justice institution can safely ignore.
It commands attention.
Sometimes,
it commands sympathy.
Frequently,
it commands public confidence.
And in matters of confidence,
its influence increasingly extends beyond the boundaries of the smartphone into boardrooms, courtrooms, political offices and commercial enterprises.
A Contemporary Illustration
Permit me to illustrate.
When the dispute involving the musicians Cinderella Sanyu who goes by the stage name Cindy Sanyu, the King Herself and Shamim Murerwa who goes by the stage name Omega 256 captured public attention, many observed something remarkable.
The controversy did not initially unfold through pleadings, affidavits or cross-examination.
Instead, it unfolded before the court of public opinion.
Millions watched.
Millions discussed.
Millions evaluated competing narratives.
Whatever one’s view of the merits of that dispute, one fact remains difficult to ignore.
Public pressure became an important part of the story.
The episode invites reflection.
Not because social media replaced the law.
It did not.
But because it demonstrated that, in contemporary society, many grievances now pass first through the digital public square before they ever reach formal institutions, or instead of reaching them at all.
The Search for Recognition
Justice is not merely about legal remedies.
It is also about recognition.
Many citizens long first to be heard.
To be believed.
To have their suffering acknowledged.
Sometimes the courtroom eventually provides those things.
Sometimes it cannot.
Sometimes it is too distant.
Too costly.
Too slow.
Or too procedurally constrained to satisfy the immediate human need to be seen.
The digital public square responds to that need with extraordinary speed.
Within moments, a voice may travel across an entire nation.
That speed explains part of its attraction.
It does not necessarily establish its wisdom.
But it does explain its appeal.
The Blessing and the Danger
Here we must exercise caution.
The digital public square is neither angel nor demon.
It has exposed corruption.
It has amplified voices long ignored.
It has mobilised communities in support of vulnerable persons.
It has sometimes prompted institutions to revisit decisions that deserved renewed scrutiny.
Yet it has also spread misinformation.
It has condemned without hearing.
It has rewarded outrage over evidence.
It has encouraged the rapid circulation of accusation before investigation.
For these reasons, this Letter does not celebrate social media as a substitute for the administration of justice.
Neither does it dismiss it as a passing distraction.
Rather, it recognises it as one of the many arenas in which public confidence is now formed, contested and sometimes transformed.
The Behaviour Remains the Same
Recall our first witness.
When confidence weakened, the people sought another path.
Recall our second witness.
The Judiciary itself recognised that justice may travel along more than one constitutional pathway.
Now observe our third witness.
The mechanism remains unchanged.
Only the setting has altered.
The village gathering has become a digital community.
The community meeting has become a livestream.
The neighbourhood conversation has become a national discussion.
The instinct, however, is remarkably familiar.
People continue seeking forums in which they believe their grievances will be heard.
A Humbling Lesson for the Legal Profession
This chapter does not diminish the dignity of the Advocate.
Nor does it lessen the constitutional authority of the Courts.
Instead, it presents us with a humbling question.
If citizens increasingly seek recognition in places beyond the courtroom, what does that reveal about the expectations they now carry into our institutions?
Do they seek only judgments?
Or do they also seek understanding?
Do they seek only procedure?
Or do they also seek participation?
Do they seek only legality?
Or do they also seek legitimacy?
These are uncomfortable questions.
Yet institutions mature not by avoiding uncomfortable questions, but by answering them honestly.
The Third Proposition Quietly Emerges
At this point, a pattern becomes difficult to ignore.
Citizens do not simply compare institutions by their legal authority.
They compare them by their ability to satisfy deeply human expectations.
Accessibility.
Visibility.
Responsiveness.
Fairness.
Dignity.
Timeliness.
Trust.
The institution that best embodies these qualities increasingly becomes the institution to which people first turn.
Not because the law commands it.
But because confidence invites it.
A Bridge to the Fourth Witness
Thus far we have listened to communities.
We have listened to the Judiciary.
We have listened to society.
One witness remains.
Perhaps the most unexpected of all.
It neither belongs to tradition nor to social media.
It writes no judgments of its own.
Yet every day it assists lawyers, students, judges, journalists and ordinary citizens in understanding the law.
It is neither human nor institution in the ordinary sense.
It is a technology.
Artificial Intelligence.
If the first witness teaches us where people went when institutions disappointed them, and the third teaches us where they gather today, the fourth asks an even more unsettling question:
What happens when justice itself becomes conversational?
It is to that witness that we now turn.
JOIN THE UNDERGROUND AND FUEL THE MOVEMENT
We have created a dedicated fans WhatsApp Channel. Don’t miss the latest updates, get early bird access to our latest blog posts and more, so much more. Click the following link to follow the Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb9BQqw5a246bWVsLl3j
Independent institutional critique and advocacy for a radical overhaul of legal culture require time, deep research, and uncompromised independence. If these narratives bring value to your legal journey or challenge your perspective, please visit our HOME PAGE to see how you can support this platform directly and keep the critique fierce and relentless.
Enen Ambrose. Advocate
Member, Judiciary Affairs Committee,
Uganda Law Society
& Founder–Enen Legal World
Justice Ignited. Courage Unleashed.
www.enenlegalworld.com | enen@enenlegalworld.com
Leave a Reply