Time to leverage technology in court administration

The National Democratic Congress (NDC) spectacularly swept to power.

The margin of defeat for the then incumbent government of the New Patriotic Party (NPP) was unprecedented in the annals of election defeats in the Fourth Republic.

Undoubtedly, one of the reasons for the total annihilation of the NPP was the promise by the NDC to ‘reset’ Ghana.

The reset has duly begun in earnest in various sectors of the economy.

An area that has to feature prominently in this ‘resetting’ agenda is the administration of justice, as without doubt, the efficient running of the courts has a direct impact on the development of the economy, not least, as a springboard for the attraction of foreign investors. 

Resetting

The resetting of the court system should be paramount.

To rid the court of negative and unproductive practices will require tackling the problem holistically, both in simplifying court procedures and enacting forward-looking and proactive policies and, of course, the substantive laws. 

We will, on these pages, on a cumulative and incremental basis, gradually tease out some of the problems that are currently bedevilling the administration of justice, in no order of importance.

Technology

The starting point of any such discussion must necessarily be centred on leveraging technology in the administration of justice. Technology has significant advantages, including enhanced efficiency through automation.

Technology could be deployed to inform court users of any changes to scheduled hearings.

The refusal and/or reluctance of courts to inform parties to an action of changes to the scheduling of cases, due to a variety of reasons, is legendary. 

Countless anecdotes abound over instances where parties learn of rescheduled hearings on the very day of the hearing.

A case in point is what I encountered this week.

I had travelled all the way from leafy Komenda to attend court in Accra only to be confronted with the dreaded message from the court clerk that the court would not be sitting that day, with no explanation given. 

Granted, that some situations, such as an unforeseen emergency that has befallen a judge, a lawyer or the parties in the case, cannot be legislated on, but there are numerous instances where the possibility of a court not sitting is known well in advance, yet parties are not informed until the morning of the hearing.

For example, if judges are scheduled for judicial training, which would occasion the adjournment of hearings, this can be communicated to parties well in advance, but in practice, this never happens.

This is one area where the deployment of technology can easily limit the inconvenience to the parties — lost transport costs, time and expense.

In this day of mobile phones, a simple prior notification by SMS or WhatsApp could avoid the inconvenience to the parties, not least the lawyers in the case. 

Going forward, courts could ensure that the telephone contacts of lawyers in the case are put into the docket so that they can be notified well in advance of any disruptions to the scheduled hearings.

This is not only practical but respectful to all parties concerned. 

Filing

Another area where technology can come into its own is the use of electronic devices in the filing and sending of court documents.

A great deal of noise was made by the Judicial Service when the much-touted e-Justice was launched some years back.

E-Justice was supposed to be the panacea for the elimination of some of the bottlenecks infecting the system.

One of the potential benefits was going to be the efficient serving of court processes electronically.

Many court adjournments have occurred in the past, and continue to strangle the system by parties claiming non-service of court processes.

Not only will court processes be streamlined if they are served electronically, but it will also eliminate the instances where parties deliberately evade physical service by court bailiffs.

To avoid disputes where parties challenge the accuracy of court transcripts, stenographers should be used in courts.

At the moment, court proceedings are either typed or handwritten and sometimes the typists/writers cannot keep up with the flow of submissions by counsel and omit vital points. 

Stenographers can type at speeds exceeding 200 words per minute to produce a verbatim, real-time record of spoken words.

These are just a few of the changes which would improve the court system and the efficient administration of justice.

Let us hope some of the problems highlighted in this article will be swiftly attended to as part of the ‘resetting’ of court administration.

The writer is a lawyer.
E-mail: georgebshaw1@gmail.com