Equip judicial officers to speed up delivery of justice

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is just a cliché, at least in Kenya, for now. Article 159 of the Constitution requires that justice be done to all, irrespective of status. Further, that justice should not be delayed and should be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Finally, that courts and tribunals exercising judicial authority should protect and promote the purpose and principles of the Constitution.

One of the hallmarks of the Constitution was the requirement that all judges serving under the repealed Constitution be vetted. This vetting process was one of the measures meant to restore in the public confidence and trust in the Judiciary. Everyone agreed that lack of confidence and trust in the independence of the Judiciary and its delivery of justice was one of the triggers of the post-election violence of 2007/2008. Other measures included setting up of the Supreme Court to hear presidential petitions and other matters of utmost public importance, the Judiciary Fund, and the Judicial Service Commission.

The Judiciary has since transformed for the better on legislative paper as well as in real life. However, there are many aspects that still require attention to achieve speed, quality and quantity in the delivery of justice.

Recognising some of these areas of weakness, the Judiciary has recently launched Performance Management and Measurement Tools. It is said these tools will be used to assess the performance of judges and magistrates. It is modelled to be a reward and sanctions performance measurement system.

The Judiciary aims to ensure the hearing of cases commence within 60 days of filing. Further, that judgements on cases are delivered within 12 months of their filing. Daily returns, quantity and speed in delivery of judgements and rulings will become a key assessment tool.

The Judiciary should be commended for recognising a key weakness, and without prompting from the public, developing a solution.  However, this Performance Management and Measurement programme will not be successful if judicial officers, that is, judges and magistrates, and their administrative assistants, are not offered the human resources and ICT facilities required to hear cases and deliver quality judgements without delay.

The human resources and ICT facilities at the East African Court of Justice in Arusha would be a good model to copy in Kenya. All their courtrooms are equipped with microphones for judges, advocates and witnesses. They also have automated recording machines and personnel who transcribe the recorded proceedings. As a result of the automated court processes, at the East African Court of Justice, judges do not have to manually record proceedings word for word as witnesses give evidence and as advocates address them. Judges, the advocates and the parties can receive the official record of the proceedings on the same day or the next day.

Unlike the situation in Kenya, advocates and parties before the court in Arusha do not have to wait for days, months and sometimes years, to receive the official record of court proceedings.  They have no fear that essential evidence or legal points will not be reflected in the proceedings.

The quickest and fool-proof answer to the quick delivery of justice in Kenya lies in automated court proceedings, fully and properly equipped judicial officers and their continuous training.

Once upon a time there was a High Court judge who heard and completed all cases brought before her on the same day and delivered judgements on the next day. She was removed during the vetting of Judges and Magistrates under the new Constitution. It is ironical that a judge who would have had the greatest success under the new Performance Management and Measurement Tools did not impress the vetting board with her performance.