That was my question too. We know the suggestion that a woman could urinate on a ceiling sounds far-fetched but is that really the answer expected from a Director of Forensic Services?When a senior forensic official gives an answer like this, people are entitled to question the quality of the investigation

Negative publicity to blame for tough economy - deputy BoU governor. links.monitor.co.ug/JnMdFt #MonitorUpdates

So apart from FACTS which AM doesnt have and Cooked up evidence that he has but still doesnt know how to frame them perfectly, what does he actually have?

ICYMI: ACP Andrew Mubiru, Uganda Police’s Director of Forensic Services Tries to Downplay Domestic Violence Suffered by Mrs Molly Katanga. On this day, Mr Mubiru said Mrs Katanga’s blood, found allover the room, might have been due to her urinating there! Judge advised him to stop “making outrageous statements” Mr Elison Karuhanga of Kampala Associated Advocates was leading the cross examination of the state’s Star Witness, Mr Andrew Mubiru. Presiding Judge was His Lordship Isaac Muwata. This was before he was indisposed and was replaced by Her Lordship Rosette Comfort Kania Verbatim reporting: 👇🏾 Judge Muwata inquiring into labeling of exhibit XX: (Is it) blood on the floor of the master bedroom? EK to AM: You found blood on the floor of the master bedroom belonging to Molly Katanga? The one (exhibit) you corrected.. AM: Yes, that’s XII, exhibit labeled 2… EK: So, that’s blood on the floor belonging to Molly Katanga? AM: We received a swab, obtained from the floor near the eastern door to the master bedroom EK: And it had blood? AM: Yes EK: And it had Molly Katanga’s blood? AM: It (the blood) had DNA which was attributed to… EK: Molly Katanga? AM: Yes EK: So it’s Molly Katanga’s blood? AM: You can infer EK laughs, as if in disbelief that Mr Mubiru can’t bring himself to say “this was indeed Molly Katanga’s blood”. He then goes ahead with his cross examination: You also have blood on the western wall of the wardrobe of the master bedroom AM: Yes, that’s exhibit labeled A Judge Muwata: A? Blood on where? AM: That is a cutting from the blood swab from the western wall of the wardrobe in the master bedroom near the door leading to the washroom and dressing room. EK: You have another H. AM: Yes EK: And you explain that this is because on the part where the hair was recovered from, there was a lot of blood AM: No. No, no, no. What I explained here is that when we received this item H, this H was within the same packaging as…aaah, it was near… EK: You had told us it was on the side of the wall and that wall had a zone marked H. Are you changing your evidence? AM: That’s not what I said EK: Okay Judge: But where were we? We have exhibits EK: We have 2 exhibits marked H. H and then H, the same mark, the same letter AM: Yes Judge: Was there A, also? AM: Yes Judge: So now…? AM: This was another H labeled specimen 6H2Y23S025-1. EK: So, that’s blood again on the wall of the master bedroom? AM: Yes, this was a swab which was together with another swab called G obtained from part of the wall between the southern master bedroom door and the washroom door. EK: Then you have the next one which is also blood on the door curtain. Am I right? AM: You’re speaking to exhibit labeled 22-1 where we draw a specimen 682Y23S027 EK: Am I right, that’s blood from the door curtain? AM: Swabbing from the door curtain to the balcony of the master bedroom EK: Molly Katanga’s blood? AM still refuses to mention her name and simply says: “this was also attributed to the person in question.” EK: You then have blood on the ceiling, correct? Which is exhibit C1-1 AM: Yes, that’s specimen S228; that is cutting from the blood swab from the concrete ceiling near the lightbulb. EK: The blood on the ceiling was for who? AM: This particular specimen, the DNA was attributed to the person in question. Mr Mubiru still refuses to explicitly name Mrs Katanga as the person whose blood he found on the ceiling. EK insists: No, was to who? (The blood he found) AM finally cracks: it was attributed to Molly Katanga EK: So, Molly Katanga’s blood is on the floor. Correct? AM doesn’t answer EK: You have Molly Katanga’s blood on the floor, correct? AM: I have her DNA on most of these exhibits EK: Do you have her DNA on the blood on the floor? AM: I wasn’t there EK: Do you have a blood swab with Molly’s DNA on the blood on the floor? AM continues to vacillate: Yes, I have a blood swab. It says “cutting from the swab of the concrete ceiling near the lightbulb” EK isn’t having it: Mr Mubiru, do you have her blood on the floor? AM: My Lord, I didn’t put her blood on the floor so what’s the question? EK: I think let’s first go to your duties, yah? AM: Yes EK: According to you, if you look at paragraph 36 of your report, yah? AM: Yes EK: You say what you understand your role in this court to be. Can you tell us what it is? AM: Yes EK reads Mr Mubiru’s own statement in his report: “Your role in this court overrides your obligation to the party to whom you’re engaged. Correct?” AM: Yes EK: You’re here to give this court full and frank answers, correct? AM stutters EK: Are you here to give this court full and frank answers? AM: Yes, my Lord EK: So answer the questions you’re asked without being evasive. Did you find Molly Katanga’s blood on the floor? AM: I found Molly’s DNA on a swab which was recovered from the floor EK: On the wardrobe… AM: I found Molly’s DNA on a swab which was attributed by o having been recovered from the wardrobe. EK: On the curtain… AM: I found Molly Katanga’s DNA on a swab which was recovered from the curtain EK: On the ceiling… AM: I found Molly’s DNA on the swab which was recovered from the (blood) stain on the ceiling EK: In the bathroom… AM: I found DNA which was attributed to Molly on the swab which was recovered from very many swabs on door frames as attributed in the report EK: So, they were all characterized by the police as blood swabs. Correct? AM: Yes, they were characterized as blood swabs. EK: So, they swabbed blood. Does that mean they took blood? AM: I’d imagine so. (Runkyakore translation) EK: You found it (blood) on door frames of all the doors; the bathroom, the master bedroom, the nearby bedroom. AM: My Lord, the DNA is on the swabs and those swabs are attributed to have come from those areas EK: And those are blood swabs AM: They’re blood swabs EK: And they tested positive for blood? AM: Yes, we tested them and they tested positive for blood. EK: And the DNA in that blood belongs to Molly Katanga? Judge Isaac Muwata: Yes? AM answers: Yes EK: Okay. So, it would be fair to say that Molly Katanga was subjected to the worst and most horrendous form of domestic violence in that room on that fateful November morning, correct? AM: My Lord, that is the work of court to determine. Judge Muwata was having none of that. He said to Mr Mubiru: “No….Do you know or not?” AM: My Lord….I don’t know EK: But I said is it fair to make that conclusion? AM: My Lord I’m not in that position to make that judgment. EK: How does blood leave the body? It just gets out? AM: You can urinate it as well. (Courtroom laughs…) EK: Did you find urine? AM: You can bleed, you can urinate… EK: Did you find urine? AM: I was not the one at the scene, so…. A visibly angry Mr Karuhanga asks Mr Mubiru: Can you urinate on the ceiling? AM: My Lord, I don’t know. EK: Can a woman urinate on the ceiling? (More courtroom laughter). Mr Karuhanga seems uninterested in whatever is making the courtroom laugh. He seems to be getting rather angry at the answers he’s getting AM: My Lord, the last time I checked, I’m not a woman so, you can ask them (women). EK: You don’t even know that? AM: My Lord I’m not a woman. Judge Muwata intervenes: Just answer what you can. If you don’t know, say so, otherwise you (end up) saying outrageous things. Judge to Mr Karuhanga: Anyway, he doesn’t know.. EK: He doesn’t know…. EK then says to AM: According to the state’s evidence…the state’s accusation, there was a violent confrontation in the bedroom that day. Would this DNA speak to that violent confrontation? Mr Mubiru remains silent and looks at the prosecutors’ area. EK: Don’t look at the state for answers…Would this DNA speak to a violent confrontation? AM: My Lord I’d need to appraise myself with the characteristics of a violent confrontation…some violent confrontations… EK: No, no, no. Would this DNA (speak to a violent confrontation)? Just say yes or no or I don’t know. AM: No, the DNA cannot speak to that because my Lord this question I’ve already answered. I cannot speak to activities that led to the deposition of DNA EK: Okay, fine. But you were at the scene…. UgandaVsMollyKatanga resumes soon after the Judges are done with electoral petitions.

ICYMI: The Day ACP Andrew K. Mubiru tried to explain to a Judge Why the State Didn’t Run Fingerprints in a Gun Case. He was also tasked to explain why, without fingerprints and having opted to use DNA evidence to show Mrs Katanga touched/ operated the killer gun, he somehow didn’t bother testing for touch DNA on the gun’s trigger, safety and grip. He also ignored a trigger swab supplied by the SOCO and apparently took his own swab of two parts of a gun; the trigger and trigger housing and opted to pass them off as one part. Defense attorneys refused to take that sleight of hand. In the witness stand: Andrew K Mubiru, Director Forensics Services in @PoliceUg Cross examining Mr Mubiru: Mr Elison Karuhanga of Kampala Associated Advocates Presiding Judge: His Lordship Isaac Muwata Mr Mubiru had just explained why his DNA evidence couldn’t possibly be used to conclude that Mrs Katanga or anyone for that matter touched the killer gun. He’d been asked to explain secondary transfer of DNA and how that can obscure true contact with the firearm then Mr Karuhanga tasked him to explain why, knowing this, the state somehow took fingerprints and didn’t report them. Fingerprints are the best way to tell contact with a firearm. AM:The same way we are talking about source and activity applies to fingerprints as well. EK:No! Is there secondary transfer of fingerprints? AM:Not necessarily but it can happen. It can happen. EK: So, generally, can you confirm that before this court, there’s no evidence of fingerprints-in your report at least-on the gun? AM: My Lord, my report is about DNA analysis and not fingerprint examination. EK: As the Director of Forensic Services, the person in charge of all the labs in (Uganda) police, are you aware of any fingerprint report in this case? AM: My Lord, I superintend over a team of 624 people…we have processes… EK cuts him off and asks: in this case? AM:In this case, I was assigned a role to be a DNA analyst, to supervise and undertake examination EK: Is that the only role you undertook in this case? You’re under oath AM:Yes EK:Okay (Note: Mr Mubiru was later to tell Mr MacDusman Kabega that he’s not the one who did the DNA analysis, the same having been done by a one Barnabas Haririmana and Mr Mubiru instead did examination and review). EK to AM (after he claimed he possibly couldn’t know every report that came from his forensics department and was limited to DNA analysis):Did you forward a blood spatter analysis report to CID on the 25th of January (2024)? AM:Yes, there’s a team under my command who are dedicated to doing that work. My role as an administrator…. EK: Hold on, let’s go slow. Did you forward a blood spatter analysis report to CID on the 25th of January? Yes or no. AM: My Lord, I forward very many reports, I need to look at that one. EK: Do you remember forwarding one on blood in this case or you don’t remember? (Note: Mr Andrew Mubiru told Justice Isaac Muwata that he had directly supervised the team that conducted blood spatter analysis at the Katanga residence. Remarkably, going by his testimony, he did this without ever stepping in the room). AM: Do share with me (the blood spatter report), I’ll remember EK:Do you remember? AM:I remember sharing very many reports. He asks again to be given the report in question. Mr Karuhanga sends it his way AM:My Lord, this is a report from the department of criminal identification…. EK: No, did you forward it? Please answer the question that you’ve been asked. Did you forward that report? AM: I can see a forwarding letter here EK: Signed by you? AM: It has my signature… EK: Did you forward it? AM: Forwarded on the 25th of January 2024…. EK: Thank you Judge: Forwarded a blood what? Spatter? AM: A crime scene report on blood stain pattern analysis… EK: In fact you were even in the room when that was being done. Did you do that blood pattern analysis? That last question opened up another pandora box…You just had to be there!

This case! if the forensic evidence cannot reliably establish who handled the firearm, what evidence bridges that gap? More importantly, can a court safely infer guilt where the forensic chain of proof remains inconclusive?

“When the fight becomes lonely, the crowd thins quickly.” -Ndigejjerawa Anko @TonyNatif the records have you. You have been there for @MaleMabiriziHKK, you have always asked for updates, you have advocated for him, defended him even when those he called friends went silent. Tnx

I hate the fact that they are using sickle cells as an excuse to eat money well knowing that almost 60% of Ugandans are carriers and if you object. U will be tagged as a person who doesn't have the interests of the country at heart 💔

I need to pay more attention to Tony's fight with that section of the Police. The man has been relentless 🤣

Yesterday the Inspector General of Government (IGG) interdicted the current CEO of Uganda National Mining Company (UNMC), Mr Gerald Banaga-Baingi, and the Corporation Secretary, Lelia Bwambale, to pave way for a full investigation of the organization. Now, sources at UNMC say that Mr Banaga-Baingi is still in office. Apparently, the chairperson of the board, Mrs Maria Kiwanuka, has not officially notified Mr Banaga-Baingi of this decision - for whatever reasons. Nonetheless, Banaga-Baingi must have read the official statement of the IGG on X (Twitter). His continued presence in office is obvious defiance of the IGG. It must therefore be aimed at covering up evidence. I have spoken to the CDF who is also chairman of PLU and the leading person in the anti corruption crusade, Gen Muhoozi Kainerugaba. He says he fully supports the decision of the IGG. Mr Banaga-Baingi’s defiance of the IGG cannot be tolerated. He is advised to leave office immediately or face the full force of the state to evict him forcefully by police or UPDF.

Which DNA are you referring to? Mubiru himself testified in court that he never tested Molly’s DNA on the grip or the safety. Even an amateur knows that checking for DNA on the grip is one of the first things a forensics team does.

📌The Austrian Government, @UNFPAUganda and @GovUganda Launch €3.4M SAFER Phase III to Advance Justice, SRHR and GBV Services in Northern Uganda Today, @MoJCAUG Permanent Secretary, Mr. Robert Kasande together with Ms. @rachel_odoi, the Senior Technical Advisor-JLOS Secretariat hosted the official signing of a €3.42 Million Tripartite Agreement between the Austrian Government, @UNFPAUganda and @GovUganda at JLOS Towers, Kampala. The agreement launches Phase III of the SAFER Project (2026–2029) – Sexual and Reproductive Health, Access to Justice, Freedom, Equality and Rights – under the leadership of the @MOJCA and the @Mglsd_UG. What SAFER III will deliver: Building on Phases I & II, the project will expand survivor-centred access to justice, uphold SRHR, and address GBV across Karamoja, Acholi and Lango sub-regions, targeting 830,872 direct beneficiaries – primarily women, adolescent girls, persons with disabilities and underserved communities. Key interventions include: ▶️Scaling up integrated SRHR, GBV prevention & response, and legal services ▶️Strengthening institutional capacity – ODPP, Uganda Police Force, Uganda Prison Service, UHRC, Local Council Courts – to reduce case backlogs through special court sessions and ADR ▶️Advancing social transformation by tackling harmful practices including FGM, child marriage, and emerging forms of violence such as technology-facilitated GBV “This support reflects Austria’s continued commitment to strengthening the rule of law and protecting the rights of vulnerable populations,” said @Dr_KatjaK, Head of Austrian Embassy in Uganda “By streamlining integrated health, justice, and protection services, UNFPA is committed to ensuring that every survivor of GBV receives rapid, dignified, and survivor-centered support,” said Ms. Kristine Blokhus, @UNFPAUganda Country Representative. The programme uses a systems-strengthening approach, embedding into national structures for sustainability, with CSOs such as @uwonet. This is fully aligned with Uganda’s Fourth National Development Plan (NDP IV). We thank the Government of Austria and UNFPA for this continued partnership.

ICYMI: ACP Andrew Mubiru admits, with difficulty, that all blood he found allover the Katanga bedroom was Mrs Katanga’s except blood on the bed where Mr Henry Katanga was found dead in a pool of his own blood, gun besides him. He also acknowledged that @PoliceUg investigators weren’t interested in how Mrs Katanga was injured and bled allover the bedroom. GBV and the Law: Twice a Victim As a society, we love the aesthetics of activism against GBV but the moment a victim fights back to stay alive , the system and public turns on them. We are literally incarcerating the victims we claim we want to protect. Nowhere has this been more stark than this court session I’m gonna share. Background Mrs Molly Katanga is charged with shooting and killing her husband on the morning of 2/Nov/2023. The state alleges there was a “domestic brawl” in the couple’s bedroom after which the wife shot the husband on the left side of his head and he died. Her children, house help and a medical personnel who rushed to the scene are also charged as accessories after the fact. They’re said to have tampered with the crime scene and destroyed evidence. This, despite the SOCO telling court that in his opinion, the state got all the evidence they could have needed from the scene. On Mrs Katanga’s side, her defense is that she was a victim of egregious domestic violence at the hands of her husband. The beatings she took, according to the Head of Medical Services in Police Dr Moses Byaruhanga could have killed her if there was no immediate medical attention. He was a state witness. The house-help, Mr George Amanyire reported hearing loud cries for help from her as her now deceased husband beat her relentlessly. George tried to intervene but the husband ordered him away and continued beating her as she continued crying for help which never came. Then silence, briefly interrupted by a loud sound that house occupants thought was a breaking glass, then more silence later interrupted by calls for help by Mrs Katanga. George reportedly rushed back upstairs only to find a trail of blood on the floor which he followed and found Mrs Katanga lying in a pool of her own blood in her son’s room adjacent to the couple’s bedroom, blood gushing from both hands, and her head. He told police that he thought her brains were oozing out. Her hands were barely attached to the rest of the arm. She was whispering “my children, my children”. A medic, Mr Charles Otai was immediately called. So was police, Mrs Katanga’s children and Mr Katanga’s sister Naome Nyangweso. The two daughters and Mr Otai showed up almost immediately. The police showed up more than 2 hours later and pretty much jailed whoever was at the scene. The Sister in law showed up long after she’d been told her brother had died. Mrs Katanga was rushed to IHK where medical intervention saved her life. Back to the scene on Chwa II road, the immediate family alleged suicide, the state briefly investigated that then immediately abandoned it and substituted it for homicide. Thus started a murder case that’s now inched into its third year. To support their murder charge, then DPP Jane Frances Abodo claimed in her indictment that she had evidence of Mrs Katanga’s DNA on the gun; which, when taken with other evidence at the state’s disposal would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Molly Katanga killed her husband. Mrs Katanga, after public pressure and a ferocious media onslaught-mounted by her sister in law Naome Nyangweso and some other Katanga associates- was yanked out of her hospital bed and dragged before a Magistrate in Nakawa, in a wheelchair. She was immediately dispatched to Luzira where she still is to this day; having been denied bail thrice. When the trial eventually started in 2024, the state brought out its star witness, ACP Andrew Mubiru. He’s the Director of Forensic Services in Uganda Police and he’s said to have analyzed the DNA samples in this case and found Mrs Katanga’s DNA dominant on the pistol magazine, barrel as well as trigger and trigger housing. The presiding Judge, Her Lordship Rosette Comfort Kania partly relied on that to find a case to answer against Mrs Katanga. She’s currently in the middle of her defense. Anyway, back to Mr Mubiru’s court appearance: He did say he was the one who did DNA analysis in this case; then when pressed further said he wasn’t the one who did it but a one Barnabas Haririmana did it and he only worked as a reviewer and supervisor. He indicated that then DPP Abodo made up those claims of having DNA evidence pinning Mrs Katanga; the same having not been processed at the time of indictment. We’ve covered this extensively. Today, we’ll concentrate on the domestic violence issue. In the witness stand was Mr Andrew Mubiru; being cross examined by Defense Attorney Mr Elison Karuhanga of Kampala Associated Advocates. Video in Frame 1 Mr Mubiru had told court that DNA can be transferred from one individual to another and even from that individual to an object. He said he didn’t test for background DNA on the gun so his report could not tell who put DNA on it, how it was put (activity level analysis) or even when it was put. The import of this being that even if Mr Katanga held his wife’s hand a week earlier and then held his gun for cleaning or anything, her DNA could be transferred there and thus be found there by Mr Mubiru. Ditto the fact that the gun was found on the bed shared by the couple ultimately meant that it was expected to have both their DNA. That’s not really controversial. Mr Mubiru’s report also indicated that the couple’s bedroom had blood allover it and except for the bed, the rest of the blood was Mrs Katanga’s. Mr Karuhanga then took him through the different areas her blood was found, according to police swabs taken, analyzed and reported by Mr Mubiru. EK to AM: Next one is blood from the swab of the door handle for the bedroom opposite the master bedroom. Again would I be correct to say Molly Katanga bled while making contact with that door? AM: My Lord he’s talking about activity, I cannot talk about activity. I can only tell you about the source. EK: The source is blood. You see now we are at a different level. AM: Yes EK: The gun you don’t know what it is. This you know someone was bleeding (Note: AM had said he didn’t know which material he tested on the gun. He simply said it was “biological material of human origin”. When pressed as to what type it was, he said it could be anything: skin cells, sweat etc. Mrs Katanga’s hands were heavily bleeding and the expectation is if indeed she had held the gun, the state could have found blood on it. They didn’t.) AM: Yes, and that is Molly’s blood (on the door handle). EK: That is Molly’s blood? AM: Yes Judge Muwata: It was where? EK: On the door opposite the master bedroom EK to AM: And the next one….Molly’s blood was in the changing room. AM: Yes, that is in the changing room inside the master bedroom. EK: You even recovered her hair, which is on the next page… AM: Yes EK: With blood AM: Yes, that is a piece of hair with suspected blood stains….EK cuts him off and says “recovered from a door frame…” AM agrees and adds “in the washroom”. Judge: Her hair? Is he the one who recovered it? EK: My Lord I’m not sure, he was there. AM: My Lord I did not recover it. I examined exhibit labeled H, a piece of hair with suspected blood stains recovered from the door frame of the washroom. EK: And that is Molly Katanga’s hair with blood. AM: Silence EK: Now, explain to us activity level propositions. (Note: you might not tell what it is from Mr Mubiru’s complex answer but activity level looks at how and when DNA material was deposited on an item instead of just saying XYZ’s DNA is there. It’s important to do this in order to establish a clear DNA trail and then criminality if present. For a gun crime for instance, one can shake your hand then a few hours later, pull a trigger in your absence. Your DNA can be there but it doesn’t mean you put it there by pulling the trigger or that you touched the gun at all). Now to AM’s answer: My Lord, activity level propositions are propositions that would ordinarily be developed by an expert….they should be developed in pairs and they should be mutually exclusive. EK tries to get him to be clearer: But they are propositions that deal with the activity that caused DNA to be deposited AM: Yes; propositions are formulated prior to undertaking any analysis. EK: My question is; are they propositions that….you’re just making a speech, let’s deal with the question you’ve been asked. AM: My Lord I was asked to explain activity level propositions and that’s what I’m explaining. These propositions are ideally supposed to be done before analysis is done and they result from an investigator who has been able to interview either the victim or the suspect. EK: An activity level proposition would be able to tell the activity that caused the DNA to be deposited there AM: My Lord the propositions that we form are only able to give you an indicator of whether to believe a certain set of propositions or the other. So, that’s why we do them in pairs; mutually exclusive and they should be developed after a careful analysis by the investigators’ interview of both the victim or the suspect EK: Would it take a forensic scientist to know that if you found blood on the side of the door with someone’s hair, that person’s head was bashed on that door? Do you need a Master’s from King’s College London( for that)? (Note: Mr Mubiru got his graduate degree from KCL). AM: No, my Lord, that’s not our role. We cannot begin developing propositions without a clear instruction from the investigator. Judge Muwata: Develop what? EK to the Judge: He can’t develop propositions without a clear instruction from the investigator. EK to AM: So, the investigators were not interested in knowing how Molly Katanga’s blood was deposited allover that room? AM: I don’t know. He then said he couldn’t answer for the investigators as he wasn’t one.

The High Court used to be a very respectable Court and practicing before it was such an honour. I wish that this remains the same position.

Solicitor General Reaffirms MoJCA Commitment to Strengthening Alternative Dispute Resolution The Solicitor General, @PiusPerryB1 , has reaffirmed @MoJCAUG's commitment to strengthening the Centre for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution (@CADR_MoJCA) to promote professional, accessible and effective Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) services in Uganda. Biribonwoha made the remarks this morning, while officiating at the opening of the African Women in Arbitration (@WArbitration ) Investment Arbitration Training Workshop at JLOS Towers, Naguru, Kampala. The two day workshop, running from 22–23 October 2026, brings together arbitration practitioners and other stakeholders to strengthen professional capacity, promote knowledge-sharing, and advance arbitration and alternative dispute resolution across Africa. @PiusPerryB1 thanked AWA, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), CADR, the World Bank Group, the Law Society – Legal Aid Project and other partners for supporting initiatives that advance arbitration and dispute resolution on the continent. He emphasised that @MoJCAUG remains committed to providing the institutional support and enabling environment necessary for CADR to effectively discharge its mandate. “ A credible ADR institution requires not only a sound legal foundation, but also appropriate structures, capable personnel, effective systems, professional standards, and meaningful stakeholder collaboration,” he said.