Judicial Service to establish ADR Funds
Gilbert Boyefio
14/04/09
A baseline survey commissioned by the Judicial Service of Ghana in March 2008 into barriers to access to justice in Ghana showed that several factors including poverty, lack of legal aid services, delay due to obsolete equipment and ignorant of the court system accounted for the limited use of the Magistrate courts.
It is in this vein that the Judicial Service continually assesses the effectiveness of its various justice programmes, including its court-connected Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme. The ADR system was introduced via a policy directive issued by the Lord Chief Justice in 2005. The ADR programme was subsequently institutionalized as an integral part of the justice system in the country. Since then considerable efforts have been made to increase access to justice by introducing and ultimately mainstreaming ADR in dispute settlement by the courts.
It is recommended that the ADR Secretariat of the Judicial Service establish an ADR Fund. This is because the majority of people relying on the ADR system are among the most vulnerable in society; they include women and children, persons with disabilities and the unemployed.
It was once proposed that every litigant be made to pay a modest fee as a means of supporting ADR in the judicial process. It was suggested that the Rules of Court Committee could introduce the necessary amendments to the Rules to facilitate the raising of funds to support the ADR system, including the payment of salaries and/or allowances of Neutrals. Consideration was also given to the option of making an exclusive budgetary allocation for ADR and seeking approval for it.
As a third option, the Judiciary considered seeking a higher retention (approximately 15%) of its internally-generated monies with a view to applying 5% of the amount retained to the consolidation of the ADR system.
Each of the foregoing possibilities involving traditional sources of funding has costs implications for either the litigants or the Judicial Service. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the ADR Secretariat of the Judicial Service establish an ADR Fund. This arrangement has the potential to firmly establish the ADR system across the country and gradually push some of the cost to users as court-connected ADR gains widespread acceptance.
ADR Fund should be launched with a seed grant sourced from donor(s). The Judiciary itself may contribute to the fund from its internally generated funds. The ADR Fund can subsequently be augmented with funds generated from levies, which the Judicial Service can gradually introduce. This will help sustain the court-connected ADR system.
The proposed ADR Fund must, be established upon approval by the Judicial Service exercising jurisdiction over courts that use ADR to enhance access to justice; be used solely to foster ADR, particularly mediation, negotiation and arbitration; primarily benefit litigants who have the least ability to pay; be operated by an Administrator who shall be a Judicial Service official appointed by the Chief Justice; and specify whether referral and/or acceptance will be mandatory, at the parties’ discretion or a combination of both.
The report further suggests that the Administrator of the ADR Fund shall report annually to the Chief Justice via the ADR Secretariat on all activities sponsored under the fund, including the type and number of cases resolved by the Neutrals under the scheme, and specific data showing the status of the Fund.
14/04/09
A baseline survey commissioned by the Judicial Service of Ghana in March 2008 into barriers to access to justice in Ghana showed that several factors including poverty, lack of legal aid services, delay due to obsolete equipment and ignorant of the court system accounted for the limited use of the Magistrate courts.
It is in this vein that the Judicial Service continually assesses the effectiveness of its various justice programmes, including its court-connected Alternative Dispute Resolution Programme. The ADR system was introduced via a policy directive issued by the Lord Chief Justice in 2005. The ADR programme was subsequently institutionalized as an integral part of the justice system in the country. Since then considerable efforts have been made to increase access to justice by introducing and ultimately mainstreaming ADR in dispute settlement by the courts.
It is recommended that the ADR Secretariat of the Judicial Service establish an ADR Fund. This is because the majority of people relying on the ADR system are among the most vulnerable in society; they include women and children, persons with disabilities and the unemployed.
It was once proposed that every litigant be made to pay a modest fee as a means of supporting ADR in the judicial process. It was suggested that the Rules of Court Committee could introduce the necessary amendments to the Rules to facilitate the raising of funds to support the ADR system, including the payment of salaries and/or allowances of Neutrals. Consideration was also given to the option of making an exclusive budgetary allocation for ADR and seeking approval for it.
As a third option, the Judiciary considered seeking a higher retention (approximately 15%) of its internally-generated monies with a view to applying 5% of the amount retained to the consolidation of the ADR system.
Each of the foregoing possibilities involving traditional sources of funding has costs implications for either the litigants or the Judicial Service. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the ADR Secretariat of the Judicial Service establish an ADR Fund. This arrangement has the potential to firmly establish the ADR system across the country and gradually push some of the cost to users as court-connected ADR gains widespread acceptance.
ADR Fund should be launched with a seed grant sourced from donor(s). The Judiciary itself may contribute to the fund from its internally generated funds. The ADR Fund can subsequently be augmented with funds generated from levies, which the Judicial Service can gradually introduce. This will help sustain the court-connected ADR system.
The proposed ADR Fund must, be established upon approval by the Judicial Service exercising jurisdiction over courts that use ADR to enhance access to justice; be used solely to foster ADR, particularly mediation, negotiation and arbitration; primarily benefit litigants who have the least ability to pay; be operated by an Administrator who shall be a Judicial Service official appointed by the Chief Justice; and specify whether referral and/or acceptance will be mandatory, at the parties’ discretion or a combination of both.
The report further suggests that the Administrator of the ADR Fund shall report annually to the Chief Justice via the ADR Secretariat on all activities sponsored under the fund, including the type and number of cases resolved by the Neutrals under the scheme, and specific data showing the status of the Fund.
Comments
Post a Comment