Before the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution, the Judiciary was perceived as largely accessible to the privileged few.
The poor, indigent and litigants had it rough in the corridors of justice. There was no specified complaint handling mechanism to turn to.
Consequently, the institution was closed to the public in terms of sharing information, raising complaints and generally getting public participation and feedback on service delivery.
Judiciary then embarked on a journey under the leadership of former Chief Justice Willy Mutunga to open up to the public by providing a platform to lodge complaints about delays in court, suspected maladministration or lack of integrity, misconduct on the part of the presiding judicial officers, among other issues.
Judiciary’s accountability is enhanced through a range of institutional mechanisms such as the Office of the Judiciary Ombudsman, which promotes independence, enhances service delivery and the ability to serve justice effectively and efficiently, thereby increasing public confidence in the institution.
It undertakes to give feedback within 24 hours from the time of lodging a complaint.
Judiciary is thus now accountable through its decisions, which must be impartial, judicious, clear and well-reasoned.
The Ombudsman was established as the institutions’ accelerated grievance handling mechanism to receive, investigate and recommend necessary action against those found culpable of maladministration in the Judiciary.
This was intended to enhance the integrity and the fight against corruption as well as address injustices occasioned to litigants and to ensure expeditious delivery of justice.
The office was and is still a great milestone to the Judiciary mainly because prior, the public and the institution employees had no avenue to air their grievances.
This meant that any dissatisfaction from any quarters of the court was an end to itself with no remedy.
The establishment of the Ombudsman gives effect to Section 8(e) of the Commission on Administrative Justice Act 2013. The constitutional commission is mandated to tackle maladministration (improper administration) in the entire public sector.
To complement the work of CAJ, there are complaints committees in all ministries, departments and agencies, and specialised ombudsman offices in some institutions to handle unique issues such as the military ombudsman and in the case of the Judiciary, the Judiciary Ombudsman.
The office receives complaints of all kinds from justice consumers that are broadly categorised into missing files, delayed judgments/rulings, corruption/integrity concerns, adjournments without notice, delayed orders, cannibalised files, poor service, slow service, delays in cash bails refunds, delayed proceeding and complaints from private sector actors doing business with the Judiciary such as contractors and suppliers.
These complaints are summarised and recorded in an online real-time system (OTRS) and issued with a unique reference number.
The office, however, does not handle complaint concerning a substantive legal or evidentiary issue, otherwise known as merit-based issues, (court proceedings); an issue that is subject to appeal by law e.g., on unfair judgments/rulings; complaints requesting court orders to be given or done away with.; complaint regarding matters that are subject of police investigation and complaints against judges, the latter are the sole preserve of the Judicial Service Commission.
Since its inception in 2011, the Judiciary Ombudsman has improved public awareness of judicial processes and the complaint redress mechanism available to them through outreach and sensitisation (public clinics and prison visits).
It has also ensured the liaison persons at court stations are continuously trained on how to respond to complaints through the online real-time system hence facilitating timely and accurate feedback to complainants.
Additionally, it enhanced the office’s presence and interactions on social media, ensured compliance to management directions and carried out investigations by visiting court stations unannounced; and collaborations with other agencies.
This has led to successfully addressing malpractices.
The office upon an investigation of complaints refers those meriting action to the Judicial Service Commission, which takes disciplinary action against offending judicial officers and staff.
The Judiciary Ombudsman has received and processed over 10,000 complaints since its inception, with an average success resolution rate of 85 per cent. In the 2019-20 financial year, the office received and processed 1,569 complaints.
In the current financial year, the office has so far received 1,493 complaints, 49 per cent of which have been successfully concluded, while the remainder is at various stages of the investigation.
It has introduced three hotlines and launched an upgraded real-time online complaints system that has made it easier for the public to lodge their complaints and complements hence enhancing its reporting platform.
The Judiciary, like all other institutions, has not been spared the effects of the Covid-19. As a result, the Judiciary Ombudsman’s operations were adversely affected as in-person visits were curtailed.
Despite this, the office instituted measures which include; online complaints form easily accessible through [email protected], a physical complaints box at the entrance gate for dropping off complaints, telephone numbers for public use and also adopted virtual interviews and e-mail statements
The Judiciary Ombudsman is supported in the day-to-day operations by a secretariat that receives support from the JSC Inspectorate unit.
Complaints are received by the office via Walk-in clients, email, telephone calls, referrals, letters, anonymous complaints, and social media platforms.
Connie Baraza is public communication officer at the Judiciary
