The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> MODERATOR: Can you hear me? We are on channel 5 for the session. So we will wait for like 2 minutes before we start. My name is Dr. Nazarius Kirama. I will be moderating, and Turra Daniele. And Athanase Bahizire will be the youth. It is the first time we will have this government apps forum. And we hope next year it is going to be bigger and the years after that.
If you can put on the presentation, please. Just a moment. as I said at the beginning my name is Nazarius Kirama. And that is my name. And I have my co-pilot from Italy. And we will have a discussion on human rights online. And overview of the session at this time -- when we live in the age of Artificial Intelligence, the digital age actually presents challenges that requires human rights online. And when you are talking about things like privacy circumstance freedom of expression and digital inclusions, some key issues that need to be taken into account. So our session will focus on -- actually ways in which we can impart judges to address digital rights. And also we will explore some legal frameworks for inclusion.
Like you see at the beginning I see the judiciary, since the formation of the Internet Governance Forum in 2025, the judiciary has not been engaged in this space. I don't know if it's because of that notion of the independence of the judiciary, but the jury year is one of the four branches of government needs to be included in this place so they can -- they cannot only lend but also engage properly in the debates for how the internet should be governed. So our attempt as the Internet Governance Forum is to engage audiences. And we have had two initiatives that are aiming for that.
So we can see in the IGF multistakeholder model we are bringing the judiciary to be a part of
(Audio Difficulties)
Just a moment.
(Audio Difficulties)
Can you hear me? Can you hear me now? Okay. The aim of a decision
(Audio Difficulties)
(audio is cutting in and out)
Can you hear me. Okay if you can hear me, it's fine. So the aim of this decision is to make sure that we engage as many stakeholders to -- for collaboration and to protect digit at rights online. And the objectives is to adapt legal systems to safeguard privacy and freedom of expression, address crossborder enforcement challenges. An inclusive policy for marginalized communities and build a judicial capacity in Internet Governance.
So these are the kinds of -- you know objectives that we are going to address through our distinctive panels. And the expected outcomes, we believe that with all of these insights from the speakers will be able to address the legal systems better and also engage in terms of privacy and freedom of expression.
Judicial collaboration is one of the expected outcomes in terms of road maps for crossborder corporations in enforcing digital rights consistently and fairly. Inclusivity in digital policies -- that these are the kind of recommendations that we expect in terms of inclusive laws, addressing marginalized and disabled communities to prevent digital exclusion.
And finally -- the final expected outcome, identification of clues and strategies to enhance judicial engagement in the Internet Governance.
I would like to take this tune to thank all of our session makers, including honourable Dr. Eliamani Laltaika, myself, and Rachel Magege from online and from the private sector. And Dr. Martin Koyabe, who is the cybersecurity expert, and Umar...
And a lecturer online, Turra Daniele. We wanting to welcome you online, the Dynamic Coalition of Schools on Internet Governance this is a platform for judges to learn about Internet Governance.
And it is an initiative of Tanzania IGF, ISOC Tanzania chapter and the digitization for digital Africa. And we thank Dr. Eliamani for his enormous input and council on this commission. So ahead we expect to continue to train judges from various jurisdictions around the world. And we looking forward to engaging this critical branch of government in the IG space. And we thank all of them for the thank then for the opportunity in this space. Now I would like to take the opportunity to introduce the speakers. The speakers will have 1 minute to introduce themselves.
Can you say your name, your expertise and the organisation you come from. And then from there we will continue. Welcome to the session. Ladies and gentlemen. And I look forward to your interaction. We will have a Q&A session and we looking forward to receiving your questions and we hope and believe that what we have in front of you as speakers who are capability of answering and interacting with these questions. Thank you.
We start with Umar -- advocate Umar from Pakistan.
>> Hello, thank you very much, moderator. This is -- basically belonging to Pakistan and practicing law in the high court. Along with that I'm running a Civil Society with the citizen rights and advocacy, which basically targeted the awareness for the sensitisation of the citizen rights, digital rights and privacy protection is one of our objectives, sensitizing the local community that is on the internet, free and pure internet is there.
And along with that, how can we protect them. How can we sensitize them in terms of the cyberbullying, especially the women in Pakistan. So this is what we are doing. Along with that I'm taking these cyber cases in Pakistan. So this is what we are doing in Pakistan, thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Go ahead.
>> DR. MARTIN KOYABE: Thank you very much, Nazarius. I want to thank the organizers and judge for actually pushing on this idea we talked about it (?) at some point. My name is Dr. Martin Koyabe. I worked in -- looking at strategy development and digital transformation programs but more importantly building the ICT sector within the continent. We will talk more within this session. And I'm really pleased to see some of you here today. Thank you.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Thank you very much, facilitator. My name is Eliamani Laltaika. I'm from the African Institute of Technology, where I taught for at least ten years cybersecurity law, bio ethics and law-related causes to scientists.
And it's true that I am -- we will discuss -- I very much believe that without engaging judges while building the digital economy we will be shooting ourselves in the legislation, because if you have very good policies, very good laws, and you bring a case before a judge, and that judge cannot even tell what a mouse is from another device, then you are just doing nothing.
So I believe that judges are a far crumb from any protecting rights. And it is therefore my belief in the next few years we will have a lot of judges interested in these things. And that is better for humanity. I have a dream.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, judge. And for always being there for us. I know we have had a lot to work on in terms of making the dream that Dr. Koyabe was talking about.
Now we hope to engage the judges into the Internet Governance space. Now I will start with questions to our speakers. I will start with you, Eliamani. Could you tell us why you have been advocating for inclusion of the judiciary in the IGF? Why? Is it important?
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Thank you very much. Hello?
>> MODERATOR: They can hear you.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Yeah, thank you very much. Like I said this is really something very close to my heart. And it has a personal story. After my PhD I was employed by the Nelson Mandela Institution of Science and Technology. It is one of a network of Nelson Mandela institutions across the continent. Mandela had a dream of making Africa a hub of skills and knowledge and capabilities. Science, technology, engineering and mathematics. So he engaged it with funnels across the world. And through IMF and the World Bank they wrote a concept not establishing the MIT of Africa.
And they said, okay we really cannot have one single MIT for the whole of Africa, because language barrier, there are countries which are Arabic. Others are French, and others are English, and others are Portuguese. We also cannot have one MIT for the whole continent. Because systems different. At the end they decided to establish four institutions. And I'm very glad that through diplomacy and efforts of the government of Tanzania, by then, through President Jakaya -- who before that was Minister of Foreign Affairs, one of those prestigious institutions was established in my hometown.
And as soon as I finished my PhD I got into this institution and I was tasked with preparing curriculum and course outlines to teach cybersecurity law, Intel property, bio ethics and every other law that is required by scientists it was during reading materials to cases that I discovered there was a huge knowledge gap between judges or lawyers on one hand and the scientists.
So from there I became a link to try and bridge the gap. And I conducted many seminar with the Law Society and also with the judges to try to a lot them on fundamental issues related to ICT.
So now -- I didn't know that I would become a judge by then. But five years, six years later I was appointed by the president to become a judge of the high court in 2021. And my friend Nazarius Kirama, a doctor here, used to work with me for Tanzania, IGF before he became a judge, so one day he came after he became a judge if he would still come to go F. So I just gave him a hug and I said it's okay. I'm still the same Eliamani. Don't worry and we travelled with him. And throughout that trip I was saying I need have judges included. I'm the only one with this knowledge.
And luckily we travelled to Kyoto, and during the closing ceremony of last year's IGF I was giving a platform during the closing ceremony. And after Prime Minister Suzuki and I made a joke, and I said there are about 9,000 people here, but I'm the only judge. What happens? I really play that next year we have more judges. And I'm very glad that the IGF Secretariat took this very seriously. And they wrote me an email back in Tanzania, and said you have started. Are you Dr. Nazarius Kirama?
But after today you will see another session established by IGF which will compare the ethics of judges and others. Because some judges are afraid of coming here because they think Artificial Intelligence is eroding their ethical values. So we have a session today to answer, does use of AI make you a better judge or a worse judge? And we will have a very open discussion to make sure judges all over the world gain confidence in coming with us. I will stop for there for now. Because I have so many stories to tell.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, judge. I think you're one of the judges that I could dare say that you are a judge down to earth.
We have advocate Rachel Magege joining us online. And as soon as she joins us we will introduce herself to you guys and we continue with advocate Umar from -- you know from Pakistan. Advocate Umar, I know you have been in this space of Laurin foe for several years. Do you think judges need to learn new tools of statutory interpretation to accommodate human rights in the digital space?
>> UMAR KHAN UTMANZAI: , yeah, Nazarius you know the digital world is growing rapidly, and not just the law. Every field is going to adopt it. So I believe that being in the field of legal field for the last three years, it's for the judges as well to adopt the new tools just to face those to trial and deal with the cases related to cybercrime and other issues. Because in the traditional system of law you cannot have such opportunities to try cases related to speech and freedom of expression. So there are issues. Like we have seen the IGF secret trade has established the charter of human rights and principals for the internet which has been delivered through the UDHR1948. Which is important some I think those right are available to the IGF citizens, to the humans, under the charter -- came through the charter of human rights. So I believe being a judge you have been to be aware of the tools of those things which are now developing. The way the internet has developed. The AI.
The AI, you will have more things in the era. So I believe that for the judge it is very important to adopt himself with the tools, which are going to have the citizen in the field of law. And for the judges who are going to deliver the justice, it was one of the important stakeholders, the way the high code Tanzania has mentioned in a very brilliant way why he has always had an interest to work on the digital rights. So I believe that in the coming year or in the nowadays it is very important for the judges to adopt to the technology with the new tools to interpret the laws.
And I believe the traditional, the old laws do not answer and address the issues which are currently in the system of the digital world.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, advocate Umar. And I think that is very important for judges to be able to, to keep abreast with the modern technologies and the tools that they need to deliver justice on time. Because we know justice delayed is justice denied.
And you know technology, and technological tools have this capacity to be able to shut in the time with which -- you know the justice can be delivered.
Now we have madam advocate Rachel Magege. Can you hear us?
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: Good morning. I can hear you layout and clear. Can you hear me?
>> MODERATOR: Yes, we can hear you. Thank you so much for joining us online. If you can take 1 minute to introduce yourself and your institution. And if you can answer this question after that, the advocate -- you know can gender based violence be egg exacerbated online. That will be your question.
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: Thank you. Thank you so much and good morning to everyone. I am Rachel Magege. I am a Tanzanian citizen, and I'm a lawyer. My areas of practice are in data protection, data governance. I'm happy to be a part of this conversation and on this board I sit on the Tanzanian board. We have an association of privacy and data protection. I'm happy to be having this conversation.
So Mr. Nazarius on your question about agenda based violence and the digital and online platform, absolutely gender based violence can be further moved amplified and can become much greater because all of these different digital and online platforms. It is very important for people to know that many times what happens in the physical is what is going to move and happen even in the online and digital spaces.
Likewise what happens in the online spaces with people who do not even know each other with regards to perpetuating harassment and bullying to specific genders also can move into the physical.
So I'm usually very sensitive about this topic with the many clients and the many people that we talk to. But even in the judiciary sector. Because already, if you are looking at -- for example the physical space, where -- with different background, with different relationships and different structures like that. If it's already happening in the physical and you have an institution that wants to introduce Artificial Intelligence or other different technologies, that same mind set is going to happen even in the online and digital platforms. So it's very important to make sure in as much as people working towards understanding and learning these emerging technologies, they also need to understand and learn more about themselves.
And about their biases that they carry, which can transfer even into the digital and online space.
That's a very brief response I can give for now. I'm happy to answer more questions as they come. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much, advocate Rachel, for your contribution. And indeed, I was -- you know to quote by what the honourable judge said at the beginning that it is very important for the judiciary to be engaged in terms of all of these issues.
Because the cases about internet or internet related issues will always end up in courts.
So good umpire would always be the one that knows the issues. And this is what we are trying to achieve in terms of engagement of the judiciary in the Internet Governance space.
Honourable judge, how account government make sure that privacy laws keep up with the fast changing technology? Because now we have Artificial Intelligence. We have all of these blockchains -- and you know there is resistance, you know, against it. How can governance from various jurisdiction, keep up with the fast pace change in technology?
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: One of the issues that is important for the judicials to do is to breathe life to legislation. When a law is enacted, be it at the international level or at the national level, it is a document which is more or less form the. The beginnings are vague. The rights are not understandable. Sometimes if it's an international instrument it can stay for many years, but as soon as this law goes to the court, the court gives a petition. It breathes life.
It makes that law something that people can relate with. And that is what we are trying to do currently with the data protection and privacy laws.
For example the first thing that people do not distinguish out there, lay people and many of our Democrats is that data protection and privacy are totally different. Many people think data protection and privacy are the same. They are not. Before a judge, a judge knows that privacy is part of the human rights. But data protection and protection of one's information is a fundamental right.
If you look at the European convention, this is article 7, article 8. And they are actually different. In our country, for example, Tanzania, all the protection cases start with the commission. Because it's a fundamental right that is protected and restrictively.
But if you have a human rights issue you go to the high court. You don't even go to the procedures. You will -- if a law of court recognizes that they have a case touching on fundamental human rights, they immediately ask you to go to the high court.
So at the moment what I'm seeing throughout jurisdictions is that judges are defining consent. Judges are clarifying consents. Judges are putting -- laying down the foundations of integrating fundamental privacy and data protection laws within the legislation.
However since breaches are done by the private sector, it is the private sector which manufacturers these gadgets you are seeing. But it is the role of the government to regulate them. The court stands there as annum pyre to say, okay, the manufacturer is responsible for protecting privacy. When you release a headset or a computer or whatever gadget, it is upon the regulator to make sure
(Audio Difficulties)
(no audio)
--
>> It is stored in digital fund. So there's a huge challenge for how we handle the dividends. The second issue is it is very volatile. Because if you change the tile when it is stored, if you move it from one point to another, it might actually alter the actual evidence that is attributed to that digital evidence.
There are some specific areas that need to be considered. It also tre' vasts boundaries. Because you can carry digital evidence in USB. You can cut it on memory stick. Can you carry it on any other device and then move it from one jurisdiction to another. And that brings a huge amount of challenges when it comes to the judgement. When it comes to how we have hands that issue.
So therefore the collection of evidence. The processing of evidence has to be based on the principals that have been agreed across jurisdictions.
There is also the challenge of the dependency of the digital evidence on technology. You will need a device, or at least something that will interpret what is it that puts digital evidence into a form that is admissible. And therefore the judge talking about that device being used to interpret that becomes fundamental. Father and therefore it is important to understand we are entering a very different realm of social and where we are going when it comes to the issues of evidence that is admissible in court.
The other issue we have to be cognizant of is that when you consider the digital evidence, and when you look at how we need to make sure that we are able to admit it in court, then the preservation of that evidence becomes fundamental.
And all of this requires what we call expertise, some expertise in terms of processing, digital evidence officers and so forth.
And the last point I wanted to point out is we have a duty for those of us who work with the law courts and give evidence and even for the government to ensure that the experts that we have, who provide maybe expertise in courts, who provide what we call the forensic -- you know expertise within the judicial system are compensated well enough so we can preserve that knowledge in this particular institution.
So that's how I view the whole concept of digital evidence and how fundamental it is when it comes to having court cases that are very, very fundamental.
Let me just give you an example before I end of what happened in a country where I know there was evidence of a crime that had occurred in a specific room. And this evidence was actually on the screens of the computer. But because the collection was so order near, the police who got the evidence simply plugged the walls and everything. And therefore what was on the screen disappeared which was critical for judgement within the law court. So there's that. And there's also the issue around when you issue a court order. In some cases court orders are supposed to be issued in written form. So some laws are so archaic, they cannot accept any other form of court order unless it has been written to delivered to the individual person who is supposed to appear. So we have fundamental differences in how we need to update our courts, our judges and also our legal framework. But we will come to that issue as a point. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Dr. Koyabe. And I think now we are almost going to finish this first segment of the presentations from the speakers. And before we take the questions I would like to ask advocate Rachel. What steps can policy makers take to ensure people with the disabilities and marginalized groups have equal access to digital tools and services?
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: Alright. Thank you so much for that question. Here's what I'm going to say. A lot of frameworks and laws and regulations, subsidiaries have already been put in place.
And while it's good to mention a specific law that mentioned a specific person or group of people, what I see as more beneficial is for policy makers to continuously remind -- and maybe even educate the implementers and the regulators to be very creative and deliberate in how they carry out the provisions of the law. Yes?
Because it is good to say that we want a specific law on digital platforms and the digital innovation space to say this and this about people with disabilities or the elderly, and this and that.
But if you already have a law, for example, the People with Disabilities Act, yes. And it's very general as was mentioned --
(Audio Difficulties).
>> MODERATOR: Rachel, I think we lost you. Hello? Anyway, I think we can proceed. (?) any way, I think I will continue with advocate Umar. Is Rachel online? No? Okay.
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: I'm back now. My apologies, the Zoom link threw me out but I can wrap up now. I will finish my submission on. This what I will say as long as you have laws that are already in place, the implementers and the creators have to be very creative in knowing -- for example I have a provision that says everyone needs access to clean and safe water. You as the implementer, as a regulator are going to go to a place where you will have little children, you have the elderly, have you people with physical disabilities, maybe you may not have -- people who may have visual impairment, hearing impairment and things like that.
You have to be very creative into looking at all of these different groups and seeing that in order for all of them to get clean water, this person is going to need this. This person is going to need that. This person will need extra assistants in this. But at the end of the day, all of them get water.
So it is the very same with digital platforms within the digital space, and we are already seeing a lot of these creative thing coming up once again. Because what are you doing, at the end of the day, the policy makers will get to say we have created this law. And we are already seeing when it's compute executed and imped maybe young people with disabilities are having their need met but in a different way as required for each of their different needs.
So that's the biggest thing I would say, Mr. Nazarius. I know Tanzania has already been working on a number of different legislations for the benefit of the members in the audience to know. And currently the ministry of ICT is working on a national Artificial Intelligence framework and strategy.
I do remember sitting down with them and with some development partners where we advised them that in as much as you are now -- the minister is cushioning different assessments and different need assessments and impacts in the country, have you to make sure that this law and this framework that you are creating, first of all, aligns with all the other ICT frameworks in the country. And especially with the data protection Act of Tanzania. But also make sure it takes us to every different group of people. So that is the feedback that I can give right now.
And I know once a regulator, once an implementer, you know, the commission -- original commission, district commissioner, once they are created and how they carry out this law, it is actually also going to reduce the number of complaints and lawsuits that -- like they receive in court. It's going to reduce that a lot of because will you see that this implementer, this government official, has actually team the time to understand and see what the policies have and what different groups of people need and how those different need can be met. Thank you very much.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, advocate, for, you know bringing the pieces from the perspective of marginalized, and you know groups and section of the society.
Now we are going to go to the audience. But before we go to the audience in the room, I would like to have a question from Zoom. There is a person from Zoom. There is a question for the court, for the judge. He will.
>> REMOTE MODERATOR: We have a question for the honourable judge, Eliamani. What support for the judge do they clarify and has influences for decisions for judges. This is a question from the organizational point of view.
>> MODERATOR: Judge. That comes to you.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Thank you very much for that brilliant question when the Zoom attendant. It is now an open secret that AI is used in the courtroom, included by judges and their assistants. However there are no guidelines yet.
And there are no regulations. And there are very, very different perspectives on how jurisdictions are embracing Artificial Intelligence.
Within the African community, and I'm not going to mention countries here, there is -- in one country a high court judge was summoned by the disciplinarity committee because a part of his judgement was allegedly returned by ChatGPT. I think we are 4-0. ChatGPT 4 in some sentence which were not very legal. And he was called to answer. And many lawyers have been reprimanded. And they got scared.
Within the same south African community, just across the board, the judge is saying please embrace Generative AI, make use to clarify presentations by lawyers. And at the end of the day you are responsible in what you say. But use any tools.
Now we are not sure what happens, because the countries are sharing the border, sharing the history of law from the British. However, luckily, we now have UNESCO. You talked yesterday when we were launching the guidelines for use of AI by judiciaries that is being pioneered by UNESCO. Barb I hope in the next few months or two years down the road we will have clear guidelines.
To answer specifically from my jurisdiction, we are using Artificial Intelligence in the court in Tanzania for at least four ways. One, scheduling. We no longer put our schedules manually. It is automated. There is electronic management system I know the schedules will come to my chamber for two weeks because they are automated and the second is the signing cases -- assigning cases. The judge is not the only person who assigns cases.
In the past people who say this is giving me very difficult cases, cases with four complainants? Nowadays it is that Artificial Intelligence switches justices, judge 1, judge 2, judge 3. Cases are filed. Artificial Intelligence says...
So you assure there is no bias. We hand your file very well.
And thirdly we use artificial intelligence in language translation. We use Swahili but we use the court of the language. We have a transcriber and transcription systems and you can transcribe what the person is writing and take back. And we use it intensively for research. And I said when come a time GPT started in 2022, 2021, it was very inaccurate. You would get fake case.
It would come up with cases which were not anywhere in the law reports but things have changed dramatically. Now you can be very sure that it provides you with cases that have been decided by the court of Tanzania. And only the judge will go and say this is relevant here and this is not.
And thirdly to finalize that we are actually using AI to predict whether -- and simplify the language of text, including legislations or acts in development.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, judge for your intervention. And now I would like to open the Q&A not audience in the room. If you have any questions to any of the panelists, you are welcome to them. I see a hand. Please could you give him a microphone.
>> QUESTION: Can you hear me?
>> MODERATOR: Yeah, we can hear you.
>> QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. This has been very interesting. I also attended AI judiciary. And I learned a lot and thank you to the other panelists as well. I just wanted to comment. Because we tend to talk a lot about specific context. But there are other countries that they have a different context, for example, in terms of their maturity to use technology. And obviously I'm from Iraq. And I wanted to talk about, first, the political role in the country to use technology.
And the judiciary, I know they are independent but they are always affiliated somehow with the political -- in line with the political war.
Before getting to the -- I wanted to honour with the honourable judge said, it's unfortunate we don't have many judges or lawyers or legal practitioners, even in the room. There are very few. So hopefully in the next year we will have more judges and more lawyers and more legal practitioners in the room to share their experiences and views on that.
My question will be for the honourable judge. Because we are advocating to bring all the stakeholders, like in my country, for example, to -- including the judiciary.
For a judge who has been heavily depending on paper and not using technology, as you mentioned in the beginning of your speech -- how would you convince someone who needs to change all of this? Who need to spend more time to learn technology, to hire experts, to reserve evidence, for example, analyze evidence and things like that? What are the main three argument, let's say, that you will be using when you advocate for that change? And the other question, did you think at the beginning judges will need -- like in addition to investigators, will need someone who will be TekSavvy, for example torque help with all of this kind of evidence? Thank you so much.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: That's a very loaded question, I might say. And I think, is it a consensus that we answer questions as they come or we take questions first and then the answer? Which one should we take? As they come. Is that the consensus? Because I'm a democratic moderator.
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: It's okay with me.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you very much. Judge if you can intervene, please.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Very quickly. Thank you very, very much for that question. Unfortunately it is true that we are not in isolation.
Injure the way to say separation of powers doesn't work. I am from the judiciary, my colleague is a minister. We work together. So I need my minister and say look here. This is the -- what the lawyer is proposing.
It doesn't work that way. So do this. That is what is happening in the U.K. That is what is happening in the U.S. But we follow a very strict kind of separation of powers. You will be left. So everyone has to start somewhere. Judges who are so based on paper and writing slow can be encouraged to start small.
You know there our country it is mandatory for every judge to use a computer. You cannot avoid void it. Because the chief justice is former professor of law in Islam. At least ten time he has given me -- you can confuse him with a computer scientist because he talks about everything and he is the one who has brought Tanzania to that level of the use of AI.
And it is true, question two, we first got assistance to young lawyers. Every judge has one legal assistant who knows the computer and does it for the judges. So you can copy that model. And I welcome you to Dohm Tanzania to come -- I welcome you in many countries. We have at least ten countries visiting the judicial of Tanzania in half a year. So you are welcome from Iraq to come. And we will deliberate how we can transfer the knowledge so far. Question.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, judge.
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: Mr. Nazarius, if I may -- I had written in the chat section for a quick response after the hon be a judge.
If that's okay.
>> MODERATOR: Go ahead.
>> RACHEL MAGEGE: Honourable judge, thank you so much for your honest wisdom and the answer for the question, what is the political will or the acceptance of these technologies. I do want to say a little something as well, if you may allow me. Of course much in the context of Tanzania and different aspects of Africa.
So because -- and I will be very very honest, because there is a fear of technology. And I'm look at diverse groups of people, yes. We are here sitting in this room. And virtually we are lawyers. I'm a lawyer. We have judges. We have different technology experts. But outside of us there are so many people out there. And we are looking at that digital divide. People in the rural areas, people with different levels and different education and access to education. But these are the same people who in one way or another may fin themselves in court for different matters and different reasons. And here you have the judiciary of Tanzania, for example, already using Artificial Intelligence. So how do you bridge that gap together?
One of the thing that I think really helps is also showing people the benefits and the good of AI. It has to be more of a narrative than what they are seeing online or on the internet or hearing from their neighbours yes. Because if you are here and telling people or telling me that because of Artificial Intelligence, honourable judge, like Laltaika can read large vast volumes of evidence in a short amount of time. It can help him as he writes his jump. That is already a good thing.
In Tanzania, for example, one of the big benefits of AI that came in this one of the project just one of them was for the University of Agriculture where a leg tourer has been using Artificial Intelligence to quickly detect diseases in maize and corn and things like that. So if there's a language to use to already start communicating to lawyers, to court clerks torque judges, to many different members of society that -- Artificial Intelligence can help you predict floods that are coming in your country. Can help you do this and that.
I think that might be a good way, a good avenue to use to even start creating that political will for people to see and understand that Artificial Intelligence can be used to make life easier. And therefore frameworks to be established and this and that. So thank you so much. That was my additional contribution.
>> MODERATOR: I saw a question there. And over here. So will you start with him and go to the gentleman over there.
>> QUESTION: Thank you, moderator. My question is a fallout from the honourable judge's response to the question from Zoom. Sorry to put you on the spot. But I enjoyed your response to that question.
Maybe drawing from your experience in Tanzania. It is true from one the judge started to now there's been some level of accuracy like you said. But even still in 20, this there is still instances, drawing from experience, where you will find that the AI systems are (?) ten to present what is not there. And my first question is how does the judiciary in Tanzania take care of instances where facts are presented or authorities are presented. Just a little bit of background.
AI has given rise to talk about --
>> MODERATOR: If you can keep your question short because of time.
>> QUESTION: Has given rise to conversations around ensuring the human aim and on the loop in the system. So what measures are there in the judiciary to correct -- to ensure that materials presented by the AI systems are actually accurate?
And then a second question.
And it's very short. Focus seems to be on judges from you just said. We also find the lawyers coming before the courts use ChatGPT for their briefs. What measures are there in place in a Tanzania case to check accuracy in the briefs filed by lawyer and the court? Can you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. If we can also take to the gentleman. So these answers can be answered.
>> QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you for this productive -- and the question. Because we mentioned three branches of government, legislative and judiciary, there are a common sense that the executive goes full speed with digitization efforts but thish carries, there are some countries that catch the pace but there are plenty of countries where it's left behind. And their independence is put into place because they are not strong enough to be financially independent to take all the benefits from the digitization. Barb I will mention for example, making cases for the public in the country. And the comment was, okay expert we know this is all good. Data protection wars we know the rules. But the problem is we are Prince Albert prosecutors but we have only three computers so we wait for one prosecutor to go to court and for the others to work and write some of the thing. Which means we can have access to his evidence and the other.
And so much of the pricey. My question first is how we can push the executive power, the government to understand that the judicial need a support. The modernization and the capacity building of the judges, of the skills, must be supported by the government financially mostly. And my second one, is more a provocative one. How far do you think we can go with the damagization in the judiciary. I think on the service supply side, for example, can we allow people to leave their last wheel using online service or -- like who are putting their last will or testament online. Can they put marriages online. How far -- where do we have a red line. Okay. There is a reason why you can put your last will in front of the judge and to witnesses that is not under pressure. So how far do you think we can go with this digitization?
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. If we can have the answers, and then we will go -- you know to the last segment of our session. We only have like 15 minutes left. So let us keep contributions short. And interventions short a well. Thank you so much.
>> Let me try to answer part of that question. But others are left to the judge. I think the fundamental issue here is the starting point for many countries. And what you are seeing from Iraq and others is the need for what we call robust frameworks, legal framework in the country.
So for example when we looking at Tanzania, for example, when they were developing their strategy they were very keen that they must have the tools and instruments embedded in their strategy.
For Iraq, for example I would add that make sure when you are developing your strategy and framework you can include specific areas of describing the type of cases that could arise, being proportionate in terms of the punishment that is allocated and being able to have those fundamentals within that.
The second something also to have what we call the human right component in your framework. Thing like freedom of speech, freedom of expression, being embedded within the framework and the structures of the country. And then lastly, also, is the area around capacity building. And capacity building we can't arraigning. It is one of the key areas that we need to really look at. So what happens you have got to have what we call the soft approach. So you take the judge, they don't like going to a workshop. They want to go for entries. So take where they want to go to so you can impact the judges in a gradual manner.
And take the judiciary and the executives and train them in that concept so each of them can see an equal contribution in terms of what is supposed to happen. In terms of the budge here, there has to be a concerted effort, politically to be able to support the judiciary to automated systems. There are so many countries that are -- they are broken the backlog of cases. They are really efficient in terms of how they process issues. It brings also a benefit to the citizens because their cases can be had quicker. And there are cases where platforms are moved. We are now having cases being done online. So the idea about budgetary -- you know allocation is critical. But let me also come to the technical people who described these things to the executives? I think we have a duty as technical people in the room, how we describe and also how we explain problems.
If you go to a politician, a politician doesn't want to hear -- (?) no, they want to know are we winning elections? Is there money. So there's a waive how you actually interpret these things to the people who make decisions, like in your case if you are trying to convince other people. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you. Judge. If you have anything to add.
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Thank you very much. I really do.
But I will be brief. Just --
(Audio Difficulties)
Submission is a new concept in Generative AI where the robot simply fails to understand what you are asking. You ask them what are fluctuations related to economy development in Tanzania? And they give you things from Mozambique. Have you to tell it several times for it to come back. Hallucination is there to stay. But I want to be positive. Even among lawyers addressing judges. A solution to a consult, did you really mean this? Any way, on a serious matter, I want to be very positive on legal issues. That GenAI I depends on large data trained to become accurate. When it comes to court cases there are massive, millions. In Tanzania, every single judgement must be uploaded online.
If my principal judge gets a report that judge Laltaika has decided 20 cases today. Tomorrow he must receive them online with my signature and stumped the score. So if you go to Tanzlii, you will see every case I decided for the past four years, and AI is depending on this to develop the Compaq copy of cases of authorities I need. And that is what is happening in other countries. Borrows judgements are copyright-free. The law in tans I can't says if you write anything as a judge you cannot copyright it. It belong to the public.
That's the case in Pakistan, and in Kenya, everywhere.
So out of all other fields, law and AI go so well. In the next ten years it will be -- you rate something and you get almost what you have written as a judge. However -- and this brings me to the second question -- it is upon you to be sure. And in Tanzania we have 15,000 advocates. These are the guardians of law. If they see anything unusual written by a judge, it's short. It is said all over. Look at this judge. What is he writing?
So we are fearful. We are very afraid.
So if I generate data and I will still read it so carefully to make sure that it goes their way. It is good through a factual process.
Now the judiciary lagging behind in Tanzania, we got out of this. Because we started with strategic plan. We sat down and we made the strategic plan. We identified what we need. We handed it over to the executive. The executive said okay now we know your needs. In the past they didn't know exactly what we need. They would simply give money.
This month, next Monday but now they have a clear pick. What the judiciary needs in the next, 10, 15 years. And lastly, this is a very, very difficult question to answer for my brother, how far should we go with digitization? If I were to decide I would go with digitization for everything.
Because for example during COVID many people were waiting to conduct their marriage or meet their judge. The judge say frayed I could just say raise your hand where you are. Say this celebrity. I declare you married.
Then you go. You will seven me a signed copy of your signature. Why should I see you? Advertise a book from a professor of law from New Zealand and Australia who has vision. -a-vision that is a futurist of virtual courts. And he has written how courts will be in the next 50 years. Everything will be online. You will not need to have a lawyer come before you and you speak to them as if you are speaking. No you just need material. We will be work on that. That's how the world is moving.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you, Jong-un. Now we go to the last segment of our session. And advocate Umar, I don't want to -- you know short-term you in terms of questions. I know you have another question here. What challenges do judges face when handling cases about crimes and how can they be at risk?
>> UMAR KHAN UTMANZAI: So it's a very important question. Rapidly growing technology. Judges also have certain issues with the technology. In terms of the cases dealing with cybersecurity or cybercrime, judges are facing the complexity of the technology. Because judges are not well trained on the things. Like in Pakistan if the judge were here, he is lucky to be sitting an area like this. In Pakistan a judge condition even sit in public. He is not to meet the people in the public.
So those who are judges in the high court are the judges from -- before 2000, 1998 and 1999. So they do not know about the internet. They do not know about AI. So there's a complexity of technology. Along with that there are jurisdiction issues. Like if a person is sitting Pakistan has been harassed, somewhere outside of Pakistan. If a case comes before the judge, how will he trial that case? There is one of the biggest issues in the cyber cases. Along with that, the prison -- we in Pakistan have a it was passed by the parliament of Pakistan in 2016.
So there are no more case for the judges to know actually -- so this the lack of precedence along with the challenges. Like the cases that evidence can be altered and can be tempered. So how will a judge look up the -- and temper and alter it. So in so many cases like the brother mentioned in Iraq. In the developing state in the south countries there is the issue of technology and the forensic. So there is an issue, that is the speed of the proceeding.
Like in my country, in the whole jurisdiction, there is one judge who is dealing the case of cybercrime. So if a person is online he brings his case, it will take years. So it is also important to speed up, to make a number of judges for the cybercrime cases.
Along with that regarding the emerging threats. Technology is changing. Like five years ago there was no AI. So if the laws were made according to the situation, now we have AI. After the five years, what will be the technology next? So that the changing of the emerging threats for the judges. So I believe the training for judges -- the curriculum for the judges, there should be regarding the cyber -- the cyber along with that it's very important that the students of law should be taught the technology. Should be taught regarding the cyber law.
Like in Pakistan I have been graduated from a well-known college but I never was taught the cyber law. It's a minor subject or a major sub so I when I came into the field this is what I'm learning myself.
So I believe the cyber law and thing related to cyber and technology should be included in the curriculum. So this is my information from my side. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much, advocate. And I think we need some kind of -- like Dr. Eluded to, we need framework. Is there a question online. And we will go to -- the panelist make your final 2 minutes, prepare your final 2 minutes contribution because the session is about to end. Yes. There is a lady. If you can take the microphone. Take the microphone to the lady, please. Yes, go ahead.
>> QUESTION: Hello. Good morning. Thank you so much for all the informative presentations my name is Hassan -- I'm from the association for family stability in Riyadh. I have actually -- not a question but an input if you allow it. Despite digital advancement addressing online rights, systems face significant challenges inned a departmenting to whirlwind technologies. Gaps in framework hinder the protection of digital right such as freedom protection risks like data breach and discriminaller to AI educations.
Marginalized groups face hate and barriers to digital justice there.
>> MODERATOR: Is that a question.
>> QUESTION: This is just an input.
>> MODERATOR: Keep it short because of time.
>> QUESTION: Okay. Sure. So we call to develop and thennive legal frameworks draft load aligned with the emerging challenge to safeguard digital right while upholding digital trance personsy. Strengthening crossborder and establish mechanism to coordinate judicial decision for crossborder digital issues.
>> MODERATOR: Thank you so much. And we are going -- thank you for your intervention. And I think we will share -- we will share the copy extensively with the participants. Because of time I think I'm going to go back to the panel. If you can make your parting short. 2 minutes. You know a summary of today's session starting with Umar, please. Stu thank you.
>> UMAR KHAN UTMANZAI: So the first thing I'm just learning is that for the first time somebody -- and the legal opportunity has taken the responsible to come. And IGF. But for the first time I'm having a session from something from the judiciary. And we should understand that judiciary does not only include the judges. It includes the lawyers. It includes the prosecutors. It includes all.
So I think the beauty of this panel is that we have -- from act dame I can't, from the lawyer and from the Civil Society. So I believe this should continue and I'm hope.
To collaborate with the judges and you guys for the next IGF. We might have judges from Pakistan that the honourable judge has talked about Tanzania. I would love to connection him to some judges who are here in Pakistan some I believe this should continue. And the judicial system should be empowered in terms of the technology. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Let me make three important issues. This was an initiative which started in (?) and I'm very glad we are here. Has actually got a lot of potential to make sure we can do it -- as my colleague Umar said, have inclusivity from different assets whether it's technology,ish rather and others. So that's important from my colleague going forward.
And the other is stressing around the framework that exist in other countries. And let's try to also look at embedding from frameworks some convention, like the Budapest convention and other conventions that are straight forward and from Africa and so for the that can enhance the way we are looking at judiciary and the laws.
And technology, what technology gives it can take in equal measure. As we move towards embedding technology, let us also put actions in place that can mitigate thing that go wrong. Because we have advisories out there. They can attack our systems and take over some decisions. And that can be very disastrous. So let's make shoe at every point we do pricey first and security first and implement these things. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: Judge?
>> ELIAMANI ISAYA LALTAIKA: Thank you very much. Three issues. First what the lady was reading was very fundamental. And I invite you and everyone else to -- we are at the track room where IGF is now planning to have judges included. You will hear this dream taking place. So you can very much still share that. And if you don't get an opportunity, please give it to -- a copy to member for I know how to work with. What you are saying is very important.
Secondly let us only imagine we are a person who has bought a house and they move in and they realize the door doesn't work. Window is too small. Bed is too small. That is what we are doing in the first quarter of the first acceptry we have to build a few walls for the digital world. I'm commune crating with my minister from Tanzania, and we will be discussing a few thing.
I will ask him to ask a few lawyers next year. If they are not sponsored by IGF, and you can make sure you will see your fellow advocate here. Because I'm talking to the minister and the first thing I will tell him, please tell them to ask the lawyers to come here. Because if -- there is a joke they say -- and I will finish with. This it's a joke, don't be offended please, are you allowing me to say this joke? Yes, they say, if you are doing anything serious and you are not including a lawyer, there are only two things involved, either you are not serious, or what you are doing is not serious. Thank you.
>> MODERATOR: For the first time -- thank you very much for attending our session and be sure we continue to enter act in the future. And for those who would like to call us in terms of the global judicial network on Internet Governance and school on Internet Governance for the judges, I think we can share context later on as we finish. And thank you for joining us. And thank you for your contribution. I know the time was not sufficient for everybody to be able to contribute as much as she or he would like. I think we will take the it -- you know, your paper, and make it part of our conversation. Thank you very much and we looking forward to collaborate with you guys.
>> Could we have a group photo?
>> MODERATOR: Yes, we should have a group photo. Thank you.