Many Ghanaians do not use the court
Gilbert Boyefio
09/04/09
A study conducted by the Justice and Human Rights Institute in four regions in Ghana to access the extent at which the court connected Alternative Disputes Resolution is being access reveals that majority of Ghanaians do not use the law courts to settle their disputes.
The study took place in Amasaman, Madina, Bimbilla, Damango, Tamale, Navrongo, Tumu and Lawra, and had 403 respondents, comprising 253 males and 150 females answering prepared questionnaires.
According to the report, of the minority respondent, 26.3%, who had previously used the courts, 44.3% had done so within the past year but said they would not use the courts again because they were dissatisfied with the court process and outcomes. Some of the reasons cited by respondents for their unwillingness to use the courts again were long delays, high cost, perceived corruption and break down of social relationship after court litigations.
Of the 403 respondents, 45.7% were self employed, 41.7% were public servants and 12.7% were unemployed. On average, respondents had lived in their respective communities for a period of approximately 21 years.
Majority of respondent, 68%, who had resorted to alternatives such as elders and family members, traditional authorities, religious leaders and superiors at workplace to the court system, stated that they were satisfied with those alternatives. The most common reasons given for their satisfaction were that the alternatives have proved to be effective and satisfactory, social relations are maintained even after the resolution of the dispute, method of resolution is faster and cheaper. However, only 24.1% of respondents knew of the existence of the court connected ADR facilities in their communities.
The study recommended among other things that a focused education programme should be developed and implemented with traditional leaders to enlist their support and involvement in the court connected ADR system.
These findings were disclosed at a validation workshop held in Accra intended at bringing together stakeholders to examine the report and make additional inputs, where necessary, before a final stakeholder’s conference is convened in May 2009 to discuss the findings and implementation of the recommendations aimed at establishing an ADR Fund.
According to Ms Sandra Thompson, Director of Judicial Reforms and Projects of the Judicial Service, in March 2008, the Judicial Service commissioned a baseline survey into barriers to access to justice in Ghana. The survey showed that several factors accounted for the limited use of the Magistrate courts. These include poverty, lack of legal aid services, delay due to obsolete equipment and ignorant of the court system.
She pointed out that based on the findings the Judicial Service tasked the Justice and Human Rights Institute to assess the extent to which the poor and vulnerable were accessing and using the court connected ADR programme and commissioned a study to explore mechanisms for generating funds for the payment of honoraria to mediators and recommendations made to the Judicial Service on the best options for raising money to meet this important aspect of promoting ADR in dispute resolution.
She underscore the importance of using the court connected ADR as a tool of bringing justice to the door steps of the citizenry of Ghana. She explained that under the existing Court Procedure Rules, all officers of the courts are required to encourage mediation wherever possible. Section 72 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) provides that any court with civil jurisdiction and its officers shall promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate the settlement of disputes in an amicable manner between and among persons over whom they have jurisdiction. The section states further that when a civil suit or proceedings is pending, any court with jurisdiction in that suit may promote reconciliation among the parties and encourage and facilitate the amicable settlement of the suit or proceedings.
Ms Thompson said with regards to criminal cases, section 73 of the Court Act provides that any court, with criminal jurisdiction may promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate settlement in amicable manner of any offence not amounting to a felony and not aggravated in degree, on payment of compensation or on other terms approved by the court before which the case is tried.
09/04/09
A study conducted by the Justice and Human Rights Institute in four regions in Ghana to access the extent at which the court connected Alternative Disputes Resolution is being access reveals that majority of Ghanaians do not use the law courts to settle their disputes.
The study took place in Amasaman, Madina, Bimbilla, Damango, Tamale, Navrongo, Tumu and Lawra, and had 403 respondents, comprising 253 males and 150 females answering prepared questionnaires.
According to the report, of the minority respondent, 26.3%, who had previously used the courts, 44.3% had done so within the past year but said they would not use the courts again because they were dissatisfied with the court process and outcomes. Some of the reasons cited by respondents for their unwillingness to use the courts again were long delays, high cost, perceived corruption and break down of social relationship after court litigations.
Of the 403 respondents, 45.7% were self employed, 41.7% were public servants and 12.7% were unemployed. On average, respondents had lived in their respective communities for a period of approximately 21 years.
Majority of respondent, 68%, who had resorted to alternatives such as elders and family members, traditional authorities, religious leaders and superiors at workplace to the court system, stated that they were satisfied with those alternatives. The most common reasons given for their satisfaction were that the alternatives have proved to be effective and satisfactory, social relations are maintained even after the resolution of the dispute, method of resolution is faster and cheaper. However, only 24.1% of respondents knew of the existence of the court connected ADR facilities in their communities.
The study recommended among other things that a focused education programme should be developed and implemented with traditional leaders to enlist their support and involvement in the court connected ADR system.
These findings were disclosed at a validation workshop held in Accra intended at bringing together stakeholders to examine the report and make additional inputs, where necessary, before a final stakeholder’s conference is convened in May 2009 to discuss the findings and implementation of the recommendations aimed at establishing an ADR Fund.
According to Ms Sandra Thompson, Director of Judicial Reforms and Projects of the Judicial Service, in March 2008, the Judicial Service commissioned a baseline survey into barriers to access to justice in Ghana. The survey showed that several factors accounted for the limited use of the Magistrate courts. These include poverty, lack of legal aid services, delay due to obsolete equipment and ignorant of the court system.
She pointed out that based on the findings the Judicial Service tasked the Justice and Human Rights Institute to assess the extent to which the poor and vulnerable were accessing and using the court connected ADR programme and commissioned a study to explore mechanisms for generating funds for the payment of honoraria to mediators and recommendations made to the Judicial Service on the best options for raising money to meet this important aspect of promoting ADR in dispute resolution.
She underscore the importance of using the court connected ADR as a tool of bringing justice to the door steps of the citizenry of Ghana. She explained that under the existing Court Procedure Rules, all officers of the courts are required to encourage mediation wherever possible. Section 72 of the Courts Act, 1993 (Act 459) provides that any court with civil jurisdiction and its officers shall promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate the settlement of disputes in an amicable manner between and among persons over whom they have jurisdiction. The section states further that when a civil suit or proceedings is pending, any court with jurisdiction in that suit may promote reconciliation among the parties and encourage and facilitate the amicable settlement of the suit or proceedings.
Ms Thompson said with regards to criminal cases, section 73 of the Court Act provides that any court, with criminal jurisdiction may promote reconciliation, encourage and facilitate settlement in amicable manner of any offence not amounting to a felony and not aggravated in degree, on payment of compensation or on other terms approved by the court before which the case is tried.
Comments
Post a Comment