Cut backlog of court cases

“JUSTICE delayed is justice denied”, does a popular legal maxim.
Some wit quipped that “swift justice is injustice”.
Both maxims can be true depending on the circumstances.
If legal relief to an injured party is not available or not produced within a reasonable time, it is the same as having no relief at all.
If, on the other hand, legal processes were rushed to conclusion without careful consideration of all matters affecting the case, important matters might be overlooked giving rise to a wrong decision.
This simply means that a case brought before the courts of the land must be dealt with competently and professionally, and dispensed with at the earliest opportunity.
Our beef for the most part seems to be delayed justice, not swift ones.
Today, backlog of cases is troubling.
Each year, there is a substantial backlog in the number of cases from all categories of courts –criminal, civil, land, court of disputed returns, and such like.
In 2021, for instance, there were a total of 1,318 Supreme Court cases and a total of 24,680 National Court (criminal and civil) pending matters.
At the opening of the 2020 legal year, there were 25,000 backlog of cases.
The backlog can only increase as more and more people become aware of their legal rights and obligations and seek to protect such rights before the courts.
That is why some attention needs to be paid to the third arm of Government – the Judiciary, and its needs.
The Judiciary itself must also look at all avenues available to it to remove the backlog of cases.
We are certain, the urgency of the situation is being felt by the court as we can see some positive moves to address this in the increasing number of National and Supreme Court judges and the computerisation of the court process and investing in physical infrastructure. Still, we feel that some cases are delayed quite unnecessarily. We feel that the court is not using the full arsenal at its disposal.
We also feel that the court, quite unnecessarily, becomes too technical-oriented and too hung up on its rules rather than the law.
Often, we see arguments which rightly or wrongly dispense of a matter early or let it drag on week after week on the basis of the rules and procedures of the National and Supreme Court rather than arriving at whether or not it is in breach of the law.
Too many lawyers take advantage of this obsessive conforming to rules process that, many a time, we feel justice is not dispensed speedily or at all.
The Courts of Disputed Returns ought to be dispensed with in the first 18 months after an election.
Some drag on to the last 12 months before the next election. If an election is voided at that point, a person has been in office and enjoyed the full perks and privileges of office, actually illegally. The court, in not dispensing with the matter speedily, has unwittingly aided and abetted in that.
We know that there are serious issues. Lack of manpower or judges and magistrates is well known. We see attempts being made and that is welcome.
Some back logs and delays might have to do with under-resourced constitutional offices.
We take note of this particular issue as it was raised in the 2021 Annual Report of the National Court.
“Lack of resources available to the public prosecutor, the public solicitor and the solicitor general will impact on the ability of the courts to go on circuits. Without the lawyer’s cooperation, cases progression to finality in a timely manner will be affected.”
In 2021, also, there were a total of 6,078 outstanding bench warrants. Of course those accused to the courts will take time.
Another area that is noted in the annual report is reserved judgements.
For a number of reasons, some reserved judgements take way too long to deliver and this has been raised as a concern by the Deputy Chief Justice.
A way has to be found to encourage shorter timeframes for reserved decisions.
Mediation is a rarely-used process that can prove most popular in the country because mediation, in one form or another, is already being carried out in all parts of the community, often without the involvement of any court at all.
To bring it into the official court channels could make this a popular avenue to resolve disputes.