The Judiciary of The Gambia has taken show cowl of the new Afrobarometer account.
We’re compelled to address the findings presented in the account, which now we devour reviewed with apprehension, disappointment, and necessary incompatibility. Whereas we recognise the importance of public feedback in strengthening institutions, we discover it obligatory to offer clarifications on several aspects of the account that, in our note, fresh an imbalanced and regularly misleading image of the judiciary’s role, efficiency, and challenges. It wants to be emphasised that the Judiciary covers fully the courts and not other institutions interior the justice sector. But too regularly, the account blames the judiciary for issues falling outside its responsibility. Due to what looks to be a standard false impression of the role and responsibility of the Judiciary.
Lack of Consultation and Institutional Misunderstanding
It is regrettable that the judiciary used to be not consulted correct during the preparation of this account. A extra inclusive and consultative advance would devour helped provide a must-devour context and avoided misrepresentations–in particular about institutional mandates. As an illustration, the perception that the judiciary determines who looks sooner than the courts and for what crimes shows a standard misunderstanding. This responsibility rests with prosecutorial authorities, not the judiciary.
Public Self assurance and Empirical Traits
The account suggests that fewer than half of (44%) of voters are confident that typical other folks can personal justice in court. Whereas such perceptions merit consideration, they ought to soundless be interpreted alongside fair indicators. The fixed rise in court filings–by as mighty as 25% to 30% yearly–is solid empirical proof that voters proceed to rely on the judiciary to unravel disputes. If confidence in the courts were in actuality declining, we may per chance per chance per chance well question a corresponding fall in case filings, not a big develop.
It is on the total main to show cowl that perceptions are regularly formed by socio-economic realities, media narratives, and restricted inner most interaction with court processes. Whereas such perceptions ought to soundless relate reforms, they ought to soundless not be taken as definitive measures of institutional efficiency.
Access to Like minded Advice and Affordability
The findings that fully 34% of respondents if truth be told feel they are able to also access appropriate kind recommendation and 31% dispute they are able to also give you the money for to take a appropriate kind grunt to court replicate structural challenges interior the broader justice ecosystem. These concerns, on the opposite hand, close not dispute failings of the judiciary itself. Like minded back provision, affordability, and public appropriate kind training fall beneath the responsibility of other authorities institutions and civil society actors.
The judiciary has consistently advocated for the expansion of appropriate kind back services and continues to pork up efforts aimed toward increasing access to justice. Particularly, Replacement Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms were reinforced as extra accessible, value-effective alternatives for resolving disputes–the biggest pattern that the account, sadly, overlooks.
The promotion of amicable out-of-court settlement of civil conditions is with out doubt one of many eight dreams of the Judiciary Strategic Conception in characterize to make certain that that fully issues which ought to soundless be litigated are brought sooner than the courts. It is very contemporary to grunt the least, however the success of such a policy will now be used as proof of distrust of the judiciary.
Awareness of Like minded Encourage Companies
The account notes that fully 10% of respondents are aware of appropriate kind back services in their community. Whereas this signals a need for improved outreach, it is not a reflection of the judiciary’s efficiency. Awareness and sensitization initiatives fall interior the mandate of appropriate kind back boards, authorities agencies, and civil society organizations–not the judiciary.
Disclose of Informal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms
The instruct that fully 20% of voters would turn to the courts for appropriate kind complications, preferring police, conventional leaders, or family, ought to soundless be seen in context. In many communities, conventional and community-based mostly entirely mostly dispute resolution techniques proceed to play the biggest role. That is not inherently a tag of judicial distrust however moderately a reflection of cultural norms and appropriate kind pluralism.
In recognition of this, the judiciary has integrated Cadi Courts and reinforced ADR frameworks, making certain that justice initiating stays culturally responsive and inclusive.
Trust in the Judiciary
The narrate that fewer than half of (46%) belief the courts “somewhat” or “a lot” ought to soundless be assessed interior the wider landscape of public belief in institutions. Trust is multifaceted and evolves. Whereas we take such feedback critically, it must also be weighed against obvious indicators akin to rising case volumes, enhanced case clearance charges, and institutional reforms.
The judiciary stays committed to strengthening professionalism, transparency, and efficiency across all levels of the court machine.
Perceptions of Corruption
The advice that 43% of voters dispute most or all judges and magistrates are unfriendly is one of basically the most troubling assertions in the account. Allegations of corruption ought to soundless be approached with seriousness and handled through relevant accountability mechanisms. Nonetheless, huge generalizations unsupported by concrete proof chance unfairly maligning the integrity of judicial and other public officers who proceed to wait on with dedication beneath regularly noteworthy conditions.
The judiciary has institutional mechanisms in situation to address misconduct and welcomes optimistic criticism grounded in proof. Sweeping accusations, on the opposite hand, wait on fully to erode public confidence with none basis and with out offering any resolution. The Judiciary has not hesitated to take action against its officers were obligatory.
Equal Medication and Accountability
The account suggests that 56% of respondents dispute other folks are handled unequally beneath the laws, and 59% dispute public officers regularly amble unpunished. Whereas such perceptions replicate broader societal concerns, they ought to soundless not be attributed fully to the judiciary. The courts are mandated to adjudicate in accordance with laws and proof–not on inner most station or impression. The courts haven’t any direct on who’s to be brought sooner than it.
Contemporary high-profile selections, handled impartially and professionally, illustrate the judiciary’s rising independence and commitment to equal justice beneath the laws.
Judicial Independence and Affect
The narrate that nearly half of (forty eight%) dispute judges make a resolution conditions in accordance with impression in situation of laws is a first-rate one. Judicial independence is a foundational belief that the judiciary continues to uphold, even in politically sensitive issues. Structural safeguards and educated codes of habits be sure that impartiality in resolution-making. Such assertions, with out proof, undermine confidence in democratic institutions and ignore the necessary development made in strengthening the rule of thumb of laws.
Public Pork up for the Loss of life Penalty
The discovering that 80% of respondents pork up the loss of life penalty has no relating judicial efficiency. Sentencing policies are governed by laws and legislative authority. The judiciary’s role is to interpret and practice the laws, not to originate it. The inclusion of this statistic in a account evaluating judicial belief is resulting from this truth misplaced.
Judicial Workload and Ability
In 2024 on my own, the courts managed a caseload of nearly 13,000 issues, at the side of over 6,678 new filings–a 25% develop as in contrast to the earlier twelve months. Bigger than 5,500 conditions were efficiently disposed of, reflecting main development in capicity and efficiency. These numbers highlight the dedication and resilience of judicial officers–from Cadis and Magistrates to High Court docket Judges–who proceed to feature beneath necessary force.
Join free AllAfrica Newsletters
Procure basically the most modern in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Every judicial officer, on moderate, manages over 150 conditions, manner above the sensible 50 conditions per dispute.Repeatedly extra in obvious jurisdictions, especially in Areas just like the West Fly where complicated civil litigation has surged. Despite restricted sources and power budgetary constraints, the judiciary has remained steadfast in its service to the final public.
Progress and Reform
Removed from being static, the judiciary has embarked on main reform. Key achievements encompass the appointment of extra Gambian judges, the deployment of a eternal dispute to the provinces, and the advance of a strategic contrivance. The digitalization of court records and the introduction of case administration methods in accordance with world absolute best practices are portion of this ongoing transformation.We’re revising our rules, capacity constructing for team, and creatinga specialised court to offer a take to efficiency.
Conclusion: A Shared Accountability
The Afrobarometer account, whereas treasured in fostering dialogue, overlooks serious institutional development and every from time to time attributes systemic disorders outside the judiciary’s withhold watch over to the courts. Strengthening the justice machine requires a collective effort from all stakeholders–authorities, civil society, appropriate kind mavens, and the final public.
We welcome engagement, dialogue, and critiquebut plug that such assessments be pleasing, true, and contextually educated. The judiciary stays committed to transparency, accountability, and the unyielding pursuit of justice.
Enable us to work together to offer a take to belief in our institutions–not through misplaced and incorrect narratives however through educated collaboration and shared responsibility.
