|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 26 January 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Justice at a price Marga Institute (Sri Lanka Centre for Development Studies) has conducted a survey to collect data to facilitate a pilot study in Sri Lanka as part of a Programme on Strengthening Judicial Integrity. The main purpose of the study is to assess the degree to which Sri Lankans consider the judicial system to be worthy of their trust and respect. Here we publish an excerpt of the report released by Marga. Copies of the research publication are available at all leading bookshops and at Marga Institute. Both the seekers of justice and the dispensers of justice in Sri Lanka are dissatisfied with the performance of the system. At different stages of the survey, different sets of questions were answered by the respondents. All these responses pointed in one direction - that the judicial system of Sri lanka is not dispensing justice in a manner that would encourage the citizens to trust and respect the judiciary. What court users assert is that the system is not always fair and impartial, is corruptible, difficult to access, never affordable and always lethargic. Some judges reported that other judges engaged in bribery; Lawyers assert that they had to bribe almost at every stage of standard judicial procedure and sometimes they had to bribe their own colleagues. There is only one inescapable conclusion - Justice has to be bought at a price. The question then is whether this is due to a defect or defects inherent in the system or whether it is the outcome of unchecked deterioration in both procedural and moral standards which have taken place over time. Many members of the legal fraternity who were in touch with the Institute during and after the survey, particularly those who belong to an older generation, speak nostalgically of the days when the judicial system of Sri Lanka was a beacon light of independence and integrity for the entire region. They claim that the deterioration commenced in the 1970s and accelerated after the adoption of the Second Republican Constitution in 1978. allegations against the system All the allegations against the system which surfaced during this survey such as corruptibility, the lack of accessibility, as well as the high cost of legal representation and non affordability appear to indicate that the majority of the Court Users believe the time span between the institution of a case and its final determination is too long. What the Corporate sector claims is that in 80% of the instances when they resorted to bribery, they obtained satisfactory results - an obvious assertion that the delays are not inherent but engineered. Does bribery take place because litigants and their representatives (such as lawyers) resort to bribery as a mean of eliminating avoidable delays? Do stakeholders engineer the delays in the judicial process to open up avenues for unjust gain? Opinion was canvassed among judges, lawyers, court staff and corporate sector as to the procedural stages at which delays in litigation occur. Opinion was canvassed among judges, lawyers, court staff and corporate sector as to the procedural stages at which delays in litigation occur. The overall perception was serving of summons on the defendants is the point at which the highest incidence of delay occur. Postponement during trial proceedings was picked up as the second highest stage. The third stage at which such delays occur was seen to be at the time of filing of answer. The commencement of trial was seen as the fourth stage at which undue delays could occur. The degree to which the stages at which delays in litigation occur and the procedural stages at which bribery occur display a remarkable degree of coincidence. This does not present an answer to the question raised earlier; It merely underscores the questions. Delayed justice is not only justice denied. It makes justice expensive, unaffordable and unacceptable. It encourages seekers of justice to bribe and dispensers of justice to take bribes. It also opens up avenues to dishonest middlemen to collect bribes for their own personal gain and claim that they were doing so at the instigation of the dispensers of justice. Eventually, even if the stakeholders in the judicial system do not benefit from the bribery, it is their reputation and the overall esteem of the judicial system of Sri Lanka that suffer. Of the Judges who responded, 42.47% blamed the lack of facilities. In subsequent conversations, a few of them indicated that the reference is to the lack of adequate facilities including facilities for monitoring the activities in the Record Room. They believe that the Record Room/Registry are the places within a court house where most of the bribery takes place. In this context, it is important to note that Court Staff too attribute the prime place (45.97%) to lack of facilities. The main cause of delay was very clear to the lawyers - weak judicial management. Approximately 70% of the Lawyers who responded took this position as against 38.57% who thought corruption was a factor, while 38.09% thought lack of facilities was also to be blamed. The foregoing clearly points to the fact that the speeding up the adjudicative process is an essential and urgent step if the esteem of the Judicial system of Sri Lanka is to be restored. Unfortunately the available information does not indicate delays in litigation are seen by the authorities as a major problem. At the end of 1997, there were 609,485 cases pending before the courts in the country. At the end of 1998 the number of cases pending before courts had increased by 6.5% to 649,584. The calendar year 2001 began with 396,749 cases pending. The year end with 461,710 cases pending - an increase of 16.4% in pending cases. It is important to note that data for 1997 relate to 154 courts, while the data for 2001 come only from 140 courts. The data for All Courts were not available either for 1997 or for 2001. Pending cases included 15,233 cases in the Court of Appeal. Those who come to the Court of Appeal have already walked the corridors of justice for some time; Being aggrieved of the decisions in the lower courts, they have come seeking redress at the Court of Appeal. Recently, the Hon. the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka indicated that the cases being taken up for hearing in the Court of Appeal at present are the ones filed as far back as 1994. The data in respect of 1998 (which are more comprehensive than those for 2001) was obtained by the Institute sometime ago. When the Institute sought comparable data for the period 1999 - 2001, it was found that the authorities concerned did not have the information in a ready-to-use form. The officers of the Judicial Service Commission and of the Ministry of Justice as well as the Registrars of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal were very co-operative. However, it was only the Registrars of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal who were able to provide all the information sought. The others gathered what they could in order to help with the study. The Institute is very grateful to all these officers. The pending case-load of each court could be a good indicator of its performance and the problems the courts could be facing. It is somewhat puzzling that those who are entrusted with the task of ensuring that the Judicial system of Sri Lanka functions at peak efficiency have apparently not been using this information. Properly processed and analysed, it could be a very effective management tool. Some of the Judges with whom the Institute established contact during and through the Survey continued to be in touch practically 'monitoring' the progress of the study. They indicated that reporting the data under reference is still mandatory for the Judges. Assuming this to be the correct position, the authorities who are vested with the responsibility of overseeing the functioning of the judicial system should hasten to utilise this information to address one of the main concerns which surfaced during this survey - the need to eliminate laws delays. ################## During the Survey, respondents were asked what they would attribute the delays to. The overall perceptions were: * Weak judicial management (59.14%). Court Users attributed the delays to - * Weak judicial management (100%) Stakeholders as a group thought that: * Weak judicial management (58.77%) What is interesting is that Judges gave: * Corruption (63.41%) and |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
