4. Game-changing services proposed

Download

Civil Justice Transformation in Ogun State / 4. Game-changing services proposed

What are key elements of the Civil Justice Innovation Goals formulated in the strategy? What can be learned from experience in other countries? And what can be done to strengthen these proposals, in light view of the targets set by the stakeholders?

4.1 Game-changing services initially proposed and considered

Court procedures and legal services by lawyers can be effective. In most countries, they struggle to achieve sufficient scale: they reach few people. Research on the most promising justice services, how to standardise them and how to fund them is ongoing⁴.

View References

⁴ HiiL, Charging for Justice, Trend report 2020.

The enrolment interviews also offered stakeholders the opportunity to relay their take on potential game-changers for Ogun State. Digitisation, ADR and more effective use of multi-door courthouses were mentioned most often. What is important is not necessarily the number of game-changing services identified, but more vital to people-centred transformation is ensuring that they are implemented, they work, and the people are able to measure them as accessible, easy and affordable.

In the stakeholder interviews and during the first dialogue, various ADR services were mentioned:

A next step might be to investigate how many people use these services. For multi-door courthouses, data are available, for instance in this paper (Emilia Onyema and Monalisa Odibo, How Alternative Dispute Resolution made a comeback in Nigerian Courts, 2017; see box below for a summary).

Interviewed experts routinely mentioned the multi-door courthouse as the best example of ADR in Ogun State. In the words of the Olota of Ota:

I think one of the best ways that we are witnessing now is the multi-door courthouse. Because people like us can adjudicate over issues and we are eager to ensure that people get justice.

Other experts concurred:

Of the options available, the multi-door court house is still the most preferred to the court and the police in achieving solutions for civil justice problems in Ogun State. If the Multi-Door Court House is effective, it remains one of the best amongst the available options.

Among the positive elements of multi-door courthouse, the experts highlighted the low costs for disputants, the informal nature of the process, and the relatively quick manner in which disputes are resolved. Experts also stressed that resolving disputes through ADR and the multi-door courthouse helps to build and maintain relationships that might be damaged if the dispute is taken to court. At the same time, awareness about its existence and the opportunities it offers was highlighted as one of the major challenges for the multi-door courthouse, together with funding. In the words of the President of the Customary Court in Ota:

Interviewed experts routinely mentioned the multi-door courthouse as the best example of ADR in Ogun State. In the words of the Olota of Ota:

The multi-door courthouse has been trying, but unfortunately most people are not aware of its existence. The police is out of it entirely, but unfortunately that is still the first point of call of litigants when problems arise. When they leave the police with their issues, they would still be referred back to court to have their issues resolved.

Another major challenge raised by several experts was the lack of adequate funding for the multi-door courthouse. It seems that the Ogun State multi-door courthouse is a promising and widely supported initiative, which still has some room left to become a truly effective dispute resolution service.

IN FOCUS:
MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSES

We gathered the following findings on the multi-door courthouses in a number of states in Nigeria:

The main dispute resolution mechanism applied is mediation (more than 90%).
Multi-door courthouses have existed in Nigeria for almost 20 years.
The number of conflicts dealt with is typically in the hundreds per year, which is low compared to the numbers of conflicts experienced by people (in the 10,000s or 100,000s).
Referral mechanisms (mandatory or not) and “walk in” procedures are essential for dealing with substantial numbers of cases.
The setting of the procedure is that of a courthouse and a court procedure.
The mediation processes offered through the multi-door courthouses can be seen as an early-stage development in the direction of what are now called “one stop shop” procedures, one of the game-changers discussed below.

A number of game-changing services are increasingly on the radar screens of reformers in civil justice and criminal justice. These services exist in some form in most countries and have the potential to deliver effective solutions in a scalable and sustainable way.

Community justice services, one-stop dispute resolution services and people-centred innovation and advice are most likely to contribute to improvements in civil justice delivery. For land conflicts, user-friendly documents may be relevant as well. In many countries, such services already exist and can be scaled. This may require standardisation, investments and better models for ensuring sustainable revenues (for more information on scaling services see this chapter in HiiL’s 2021 trend report).

Community justice services are all about delivering high-quality, standardised forms of informal justice close to people’s homes. Although community justice services exist in different forms in different countries, they can be identified by three key characteristics:

Community justice services tend to be more common in rural settings than in cities.

Community justice services can suggest a recourse to formal courts or could be under the supervision of formal courts. They can also be connected to local or central government, with the potential to scale across borders. At the same time, their rootedness in specific communities may limit their potential to be really scalable.

HiiL’s online dashboard has a dedicated page for community justice services.

People seeking justice often need to find different services in completely different places, making the process of seeking justice unnecessarily complicated. Bringing these different services together in one place would therefore greatly improve and simplify the process for people lost in the justice system. This is why one-stop shops, platforms offering different dispute resolution services in one place, are a great way to improve access to justice.

At one location, these platforms connect the different stages of the justice process: diagnosis, advice, negotiation, mediation and adjudication. They can focus on all types of civil justice problems. The aim is to create an integrated ‘treatment’ that focuses on reaching an agreement between the parties, rather than a judgment. To facilitate such agreements, evidence-based approaches are used. One-stop dispute resolution platforms can be supported online as much as possible.

HiiL’s online dashboard has a dedicated page for platforms offering one-stop dispute resolution with examples and tools to develop business cases/financial models.

As the number of people able to access the internet continues to grow around the world, the number of justice services offering online information, advice, or representation has equally mushroomed.

The provision of people-centred online information and advice, combined with follow-up services, can really help people solve their legal problems in a step-by-step way. Such services can be run by law firms, motivated individuals, legal start-ups, charities and non-profit organisations, and sometimes even by the government.

Despite the potential of such websites and apps to offer a helpful starting point for people with legal problems, they require substantial investment to become effective self-help guides leading to higher rates of resolution. As a result, examples of these are still rare, even in high-income countries.

HiiL’s online dashboard has a dedicated page for people-centred online information.

4.2 Integrated resolution for neighbour disputes

In Ogun State, the yearly expected number of neighbour disputes is at least 140,000. Stakeholders aim to increase the number of disputes dealt with in communities.

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will develop and use informal/local dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve neighbour disputes.

To increase the capacity to solve and prevent neighbour disputes, stakeholders proposed:

Informal/local dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve neighbour disputes.
Combining ADR with local/informal rules.
Ensuring compliance with outcomes through communal pressure and strengthening enforcement through the Ogun multidoor court-house.
Local data collection and record keeping.
Introducing e-filing.
Training of providers of community justice services.
Increasing incentives to use local mechanisms/ADR.
Increasing awareness of rights/ways to resolve neighbour disputes.
Standardisation or guides related to mediation agreements.

Community justice services exist in many countries (see map on HiiL dashboard). Seven organisational models exist (see table below). One model is a generic informal justice model, depending on how informal justice is organised in each single community. Two models ensemble lawyer-representation models. One model is an interdisciplinary one. Three models are based on links between neutral courts and informal justice. These models are most close to what stakeholders proposed: local (informal) courts, justices of the peace and judicial facilitators.

Nokukhanya Ntuli (Africa: Alternative Dispute Resolution in a Comparative Perspective, Conflict Studies Quarterly 2018, p. 36) advises to build on existing informal justice mechanisms, as they exist already in many African communities. She warns against implementing “foreign” ADR concepts, without considering the lessons learned about ADR. One of these lessons is that the incentives to use ADR or informal justice need to be increased.

Scroll left and right to view the whole table.

Local delivery model	Focus justice problems	Focus in services	Follow-up services if not successful	Main revenue streams
Civil legal aid lawyers	Disputes and crimes	Mediation, advocacy, navigating adjudication	Legal aid lawyers, formal court adjudication	Fees, NGOs, Ministry of justice
Community paralegals	Disputes and crimes Issues with companies and state institutions	Education, mediation, monitoring, advocacy	Legal aid lawyers, formal court adjudication	NGOs, Community contributions
Informal justice by local leaders and others	Disputes and crimes	Mediation, adjudication	Any	Time from volunteers and officials
Justices of the peace	Minor disputes and crimes	Mediation, adjudication	Referral to formal court adjudication	Judiciary
Judicial facilitators	Disputes and crimes	Education, mediation	Integration with local court adjudication	Judiciary
Local (informal courts)	Minor disputes and crimes	Mediation, adjudication	Enforcement in community	Local government
Houses of justice	Disputes and crimes	Information, advice, referral	Any	Ministry of justice

Her article is one of many overviews of existing mediation and adjudication practices in various regions that can help in understanding the variety of informal justice mechanisms that exist. Many attempts have been made to map community justice mechanisms in Yoruba communities (see Adeyinka Theresa Ajayi and Lateef Oluwafemi Buhari, Methods of Conflict Resolution in African Traditional Society, African Research Review 2014, p. 138 for one example).

The following elements of the proposal are very much supported by the literature:

Standardise the working methods to resolve neighbour disputes.
Solve neighbour disputes locally.
Optimise the combination of ADR, adjudication and informal justice.
Increase the incentives to use the redesigned service.
Ensure transparency and record keeping

The following suggestions can strengthen the proposal:

When further developing the services, it is important to distinguish between the actual interventions in neighbour disputes (the processes leading to solutions) and the organisation of the services (who, on what conditions and through what kind of organisational model, is delivering these processes). The most effective interventions need to be researched and defined, taking into account the realities in Ogun State communities: What outcomes need to be achieved, such as reduction of noise, a better relationship between the neighbours, an increased ability to handle future issues or solutions for boundary issues? Which processes leading to these outcomes are needed? What type of interventions happen during negotiation, mediation or adjudication of a neighbour dispute? Once desirable outcomes and possibly effective interventions have been determined, these processes can be trained for and standardised, and guidelines can be made. For creating guidelines, best practices and research are available. Besides invitation formats (see under 4), neighbour dispute practitioners have identified the following best practices. These can be used to develop the training materials and guidelines for the practitioners that will be assisting Ogun citizens in neighbour disputes:

a. Using rules on acceptable levels of noise; the WHO has set criteria for this that may provide guidance.
b. Ensuring mutual respect (active listening, avoiding defensive reactions).
c. Using “reframing” and appropriate assertiveness to express needs, feelings, interests and rights whilst defusing aggression.
d. Improving the probability of resolution by asking solution-focused, rather than problem-focused questions to the parties.
e. Aiming at agreed solutions, so generally using adjudicative interventions only after, and in combination with, mediation-type interventions.
f. Monitoring the outcomes achieved during each (mediation/adjudication) process and at an aggregate level, so processes/treatments can be evaluated and improved.

a. A choice between the three different models for community justice services; in Africa and South Asia local tribunals are seen more often than justices of the peace (in Europe, Russia) or judicial facilitators (in Latin America); each model has advantages and disadvantages that need to be investigated.
b. A central organisation supporting the services, with a leadership team that specialises in scaling.
c. A clear value proposition that is known to the people needing the services.
d. A financial model with revenues from user fees, taxpayer-money and/or community contributions, and a cost structure that is sustainable from these revenues.
e. Scaling the service: a step-by-step plan to go from pilot to reaching the entire population.
f. Securing investments: an investment plan that entices funders.

a. Ensuring quality (human rights standards for interventions, fairness, compliance with legal/social norms, informed consent, protection against abuse of power). In the judicial facilitator model, a judge oversees the work of a number of facilitators working as informal justice providers in villages. In Ogun State, the multi-door courthouse may play a similar role. A training model - as suggested by the stakeholders - relies on the informal justice providers behaving in the way that is trained. In an evidence-based working model, a number of measures increase the probability of effective interventions (see under 1). In an appeal model, it is left to an aggrieved party to seek redress against an unfair outcome.
b. The need to ensure compliance with agreements and decisions, and how to organise this. Stakeholders assume that outcomes of local dispute resolution are likely to be complied with because the community will be involved and has a stake in compliance. Certification of the agreement by the OMDC may increase the likelihood of compliance, but also adds costs for the parties involved and for the courts.

a. Invitations by a third party (rather than by the aggrieved party).
b. Intake only interventions, with emotional support (rather than invitations to respond to claims or invitations to participate).
c. Questions that ask the passive party whether he/she is willing to participate in resolution (rather than hypothetical questions: “if …?”).

For record-keeping and transparency, set clear and realistic goals, and use tested technologies. What data are really needed to increase effectiveness? Data-collection should at least include information about the type of problem and about the outcomes achieved. Monitoring outcomes systematically is recommended by access to justice experts. Case-management systems can be acquired off the shelf. Low-cost and low-resource interventions may be rather effective. For example, judicial facilitators in Latin-America write down the settlements they achieve in a notebook. These are signed by both parties. Every quarter or every year, the facilitator shows this notebook to a judge who can give feedback on the settlements achieved. This is also a way to monitor settlements, in order to ensure these are guided by appropriate social and legal norms.

4.3 Preventing and resolving land conflicts

In Ogun State, the yearly expected number of land disputes is at least 100,000. Disputes over boundaries/access, land titles/ownership, use of land and land grabbing are most frequent. Stakeholders aim to increase the number of disputes dealt with in communities, whilst strengthening the capacity to keep records of land ownership locally. Claims interests could be registered locally and linked to the formal land registry. This should be combined with local dispute resolution.

PROPOSAL:
to keep local records of land ownership for the people of Ogun State.

In order to increase the capacity to solve and prevent land disputes, stakeholders proposed:

ADR to resolve land disputes.
Information on land ownership from local records offices to aid earlier resolution of land disputes before escalation to conflicts and or legal proceedings.
Local repository of records with proper record keeping which must be searchable, preferably online, to attract investors.
Claims interests registry at the local level to work in synergy with the lands registry.
Establishment of governance mechanisms and systems of accountability for this.
Managing the potential costs of registration (of land ownership records), because this may be constraining.
Ensuring participation in ADR/LD(M)R.
Creating standardised guidelines for drafting mediation agreements.
Subsidised/free LD(M)R for eligible (low-income) indigenes.
Legal change to ensure that data gathered at local land repository are forwarded to the Land Registry by amending the Land Title Registration Law.
The records must be searchable online (this is important when attracting investors).

Research on “what works” to resolve land disputes is not easy to find. The literature on land mapping and land registration systems is extensive. The WorldBank, UNHabitat, and research institutes have invested heavily in know-how about so-called “fit for purpose land registration systems”. A good summary of this know-how is a publication by Bob Hendriks, Jaap Zevenbergen, RohanBennett and Danilo Antonio (Pro-poor land administration: Towards practical, coordinated, and scalable recording systems for all, Land Use Policy 2019, pp. 21-38). Findings from evaluation studies they mention include:

Employ and build on informal tenures through the use of ‘halfway-documents’, that is ‘any paper or digital record prepared and agreed upon between parties, relating to a specific people-to-land relationship, that indicates some form of holding interest, but may not be legally binding in a conventional land administration system’.
Organise dialogues to obtain additional information.
Ensure the processes are known, so interested parties can participate.
Support through filling out standard forms by neutral persons with more appropriate knowledge than the average community member further strengthens acceptable local recognition.
Affordable and consistent recordation of all tenure forms.
Locally grounded land records in close proximity to communities and reflecting the situation on the ground.
Joint inspection can build and strengthen buy-in and trust from both community and state.
Collection and storage of contradicting evidence for local weighting and use at later stages.
Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms that are locally grounded may offer avenues to ensure dispute resolution practices for all in the community that are culturally sensitive, affordable, relatively short in duration, in close proximity, and promote amicable rather than irreparable future relationships between disputing parties.
For land records to contribute to better land governance for the poor, it will be essential that the land recordation system is owned by both local community and state through a co-management arrangement.
Avoid biases towards individualisation of land tenure rather than considering the full range of appropriate pro-poor and gender sensitive land tenure systems.
Systematic evaluation of social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Documenting ownership and use of land disputes. The most important step in preventing land land disputes is recording rights and agreements so they can be verified. There are several methods of documenting ownership or land use rights. A particularly flexible, transparent, and inclusive approach to documenting ownership and use of land rights is fit-for-purpose land mapping. It is designed to meet the needs of people and the environment and typically uses aerial or satellite images to identify the boundaries of land parcels.
Fact-finding around ownership and use of land disputes. Establishing the facts is important to come to a decision about conflicting claims about land ownership or use of land. There are several processes that can be used for the process of fact-finding. The most successful approach is joint fact-finding, facilitated by a neutral third party. This is a process more focussed on building consensus between the parties: “in joint fact-finding, stakeholders with differing viewpoints and interests work together to develop data and information, analyze facts and forecasts, develop common assumptions and informed opinion, and, finally, use the information they have developed to reach decisions together” (Ehrmann & Stinson, 1999, p. 376). The goal of this approach is to have a believable set of facts that have been collected in a transparent and neutral manner. These are usually recorded in a short document that includes the agreed upon findings, as well as those that are still contested.
Meeting in ownership and use of land disputes (the “submission problem” of bringing both parties to the table/room).
Respecting in ownership and use of land disputes (treating people as people).
Understanding in ownership and use of land disputes (discovering interests).
Shaping solutions in ownership and use of land disputes (effective win-win solutions).
Sharing in ownership and use of land disputes (objective criteria for distributive issues).
Deciding in ownership and use of land disputes (how to come to agreed/consensual/third party decisions or adjudication).

The following elements of the proposal are very much supported by the literature:

Standardise the interventions to resolve land disputes.
Solve land disputes locally.
Ensure transparency, claims registry, and record keeping at the local level.
Optimise the combination of ADR, adjudication and informal justice. Increasing the incentives to use the redesigned services.
Connect the local record keeping to the land registry.

The following suggestions can strengthen the proposal:

a. Defining the outcomes.
b. Investigating the most effective interventions, building on the recommendations above, taking into account the realities in Ogun State communities.
c. Investigating best practices for ADR/mediation in general (see above for neighbour disputes and below for family disputes).
d. Developing guidelines summarising “what works”, and from there, training materials. See for possible topics the literature cited above.
e. Focusing data collection on the most relevant and actionable data, including the monitoring of outcomes.

a. A choice between the three different models for community justice services.
b. A central organisation supporting the services, with a leadership team that specialises in scaling.
c. Clear value propositions that are known to the people needing the services.
d. A financial model with revenues from user fees, taxpayer-money and/or community contributions; and a cost structure that is sustainable from these revenues.
e. Scaling the service: a step-by-step plan to go from pilot to reaching the entire population.
f. Securing investments: an investment plan that entices funders.
g. Linking the informal justice model to the court system (see above for the details and the different models to ensure quality).

For local record keeping and registration processes, make use of the extensive experience with fit for purpose land registration (see the literature cited above).
For land disputes, participation of all interested parties is even more crucial than for neighbour disputes. In order to ensure that the complaining party and the “passive parties”all participate in the process, make use of “invitation formats” that have proven to be most effective (see above). Additionally, processes should be widely known among potential stakeholders in land conflicts.
For linking local records to the national registries that operate in a more formal way, ensure that international best practices are used as well, adapting them to the realities in Ogun State, and building on existing land registry efforts that already work (if they are scalable at reasonable costs).

4.4 Preventing and resolving family (separation) conflicts

Based on the Nigeria JNS survey, the expected yearly number of divorce/separation disputes in Ogun State is 15,000. Stakeholders proposed increased use of mediation in family disputes, more awareness of prenuptial agreements and an information portal for couples.

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will have access to improved resolution of family disputes (related to both formal and traditional marriages)

To increase the capacity to solve and prevent family disputes, stakeholders proposed:

Specialised family justice services.
Data collection on family disputes and digitisation.
Increasing the use of ADR and mediation to resolve family disputes.
For statutory marriages with both parties only, possibly one witness per party.
Private & confidential, binding as an enforceable contract in court.
Local marriage dispute resolution features would include both parties plus families, numerous witnesses. This is less private and not confidential, and mainly enforceable through familial pressure.
Awareness of prenuptial agreements: basis of understanding and emotional sensitivity to couples.
Improving client experiences (ease of access to information and more satisfaction).
An information portal to help people access information on what to do and consider what their options are.
Amendments of Civil Procedure Rules to make provision for e-filing and a regulatory framework for the information portal.
Ensuring participation of respondents, dealing with the stigma of divorce, with recognition of women’s rights, with intimidation, and with personal interests of the third party.
Dealing with a lack of resources and a weak formal legal system (to support solutions).
Creation of a standard template/guide for drafting mediation agreements.
Establishment of governance mechanisms and systems of accountability.
Development of an integrated system in the High Court, with testing of prototype, then replication across the judiciary.

Ugochinyelu Anidi (Towards the institutionalization of divorce mediation in Nigeria: a case study of Enugu State, Dissertation University of Cape Town, 2020) provides a critical review of the bottlenecks in the current legal system for divorce and separation in Nigeria. She proposes that a good divorce law should:

Preserve the sanctity of marriage and the stability of the family.
Save marriages that are salvable.
Reduce the bitterness associated with divorce.
Give empty shell marriages a decent burial.
Promote good post-divorce relationships.
Protect vulnerable parties, such as the economically weaker spouse, victims of domestic violence and the children of the marriage.
Take care of the emotional aspects of divorce.
Save costs for the parties and the state.
Be fair and just to both parties.

She evaluates a divorce mediation process against these criteria and recommends a mandatory mediation process, which she describes in detail. This design could be a starting point for developing a prototype.

The stakeholders can make use of the growing literature on dispute system design. Three leading books are:

Lisa Blomgren Amsler, Janet Martinez and Stephanie Smit, Dispute System Design: Preventing, Managing, and Resolving Conflict, 2020;
Christopher Hodges, Delivering Dispute Resolution, A Holistic Review of Models in England and Wales, 2020;
John Oetzel and Stella Ting-Toomey, The SAGE Handbook of Conflict Communication, Integrating Theory, Research, and Practice, 2013.

Many training manuals exist that describe the techniques and interventions that mediators can use. For example, UNODC has supported a training manual by the National Judicial Institute for alternative dispute resolution in Nigeria that lists the interventions and skill sets needed.

Justice services to deal with separation and divorce are described in the earliest codifications. Over the past 50 years, separation and divorce have become a field of interdisciplinary study. Typing in “separation divorce courts” leads to 202,000 publications on Google Scholar. Increasingly, this literature is interdisciplinary; legal research is combined with empirical research by social scientists.

HiiL and others worked on recommendations for justice practitioners for the key dilemmas they identified in their family justice practices. We followed accepted methods to promote evidence-based practice through guidelines. The quality of the evidence from research was considered. Recommendations (and the literature that has been investigated) include the following topics:

Authoritative parenting.
Limiting the disclosure of inappropriate information to children.
Respectful communication, where family members respect each other as people.
Identifying the needs of parents and children.
Containing family violence and harassment.
Limiting children’s exposure to conflict.
Brainstorming, in particular on ways to generate income and become less dependent on each other.
A “problem-solving approach” that focuses on agreeing and finding solutions for their underlying needs.
Sharing agreements on housing, spousal maintenance and on child support with formulas that can guide decisions.

There is little research on marriage contracts or prenuptial agreements that can be relied on. Most of this research focuses on recognition of traditional marriage arrangements in courts. Scholars have not deeply investigated how agreements concluded between spouses can be promoted, with appropriate protection against abuse. Much of the literature focuses on preventing child marriage. A more general approach can be found in a draft for a uniform law on prenuptial agreements in the US. The setting for marriage contracts in Ogun State is likely very different, however, so using this example is not recommended.

The following elements of the proposal by stakeholders are very much supported by the literature:

Developing specialised interventions for family justice, using standard templates for mediation agreements and promoting the use of marriage (prenuptial) agreements, as well as collecting relevant data.
Increased use of mediation.
Ensuring participation of respondents, deal with the stigma of divorce, with recognition of women’s rights, with intimidation and with personal interests of the third party.
Focusing on the actual needs and relationships, whether they are statutory marriages or informal (traditional) ones.
Being realistic about the availability of resources. Start from what is already functioning and the possible next steps, rather than from an ideal court system for family justice. Use the resolution practices that already exist in communities and empower traditional rulers to fulfil a role in delivery of contemporary justice.

The following suggestions can strengthen the proposal:

a. Defining the outcomes (see the suggested list above by researcher Anidi).
b. Investigating the most effective interventions, building on the recommendations above, again taking into account the realities in Ogun State communities.
c. Investigating best practices for promoting prenuptial agreements.
d. Developing guidelines summarising “what works”, and from there training materials and an information portal.
e. Focusing data collection on the most relevant and actionable data, including the monitoring of outcomes.

a. Making mediation mandatory (see Anidi, above) in order to ensure that couples actually use it.
b. Developing appropriate ways to make the process known.
c. Implementing the most effective mediation interventions that are suitable for separation/divorce matters. Given the many mediation methods that co-exist, and the variation in effectiveness, this needs attention (see under 1. for how to develop evidence-based practice).
d. Ensuring that adjudication can seamlessly follow mediations that are not successful. Effectiveness of mediation depends on the availability of a neutral decision maker who can decide the open issues.

In connection to this, the option of neutral adjudication needs to be available. This is needed to ensure fair outcomes in the mediation process (see the different models for ensuring fair results in community justice services discussed in the paragraph on neighbour disputes).
Throughout the world, courts and justice practitioners have to deal with non-statutory marriages: cohabitation, religious marriages and traditional marriages. Best practice seems to apply similar processes and interventions, looking at the actual relationship and the facts on the ground, rather than the formal relationship
Stakeholders are considering local dispute resolution for separation and divorce. As explained above, this would require a choice between the three different models for community justice services. In order to implement this, a central organisation supporting the services, with a leadership team that specialises in scaling is needed. What is also needed includes:

a. A clear value proposition that is known to the people needing the service.
b. A financial model with revenues from user fees, taxpayer-money and/or community contributions, and a cost structure that is sustainable from these revenues.
c. Scaling the service: a step-by-step plan to go from pilot to reaching the entire population.
d. Securing investments: an investment plan that entices funders.

4.5 Responsive services for domestic violence

On the basis of the Nigeria JNS survey, the expected number of domestic violence problems in Ogun state is 14,000. There is a vast literature on domestic violence worldwide and there are hundreds of studies on domestic violence in Nigeria in particular. O.R. Ashimolowo and G.A. Otufale (Assessment of domestic violence among women in Ogun State, Nigeria, Greener Journal of Social Sciences, 2012) report rather low levels of domestic violence in farm families in rural areas of Ogun State, but domestic violence is often underreported. A much cited paper on domestic violence prevalence is the one from Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba cultures is Collins Nwabunike and Eric Y. Tenkorang (Domestic and Marital Violence Among Three Ethnic Groups in Nigeria, Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2015, pp. 1–26). The paper notes that women with domineering husbands were significantly more likely to experience physical, sexual, and emotional violence. Similarly, those who thought wife-beating was justified were more likely to experience all three types of violence.

Another paper by Tenkorang, Sedziafa and Owusu (Does Type and Severity of Violence Affect the Help-Seeking Behaviors of Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in Nigeria? Journal of Family Issues 2017, pp. 2026–2046) finds that about 65% of women did not seek help after experiencing intimate partner violence. Most women who sought help did so from informal sources only (31.3%), compared with formal sources (1.9%). From this literature, a detailed analysis can be made of the groups that are most vulnerable and the social settings in which domestic violence occurs.

PROPOSAL:
Ogun State people will have fast and effective access to protection in the event of domestic violence.

To increase the capacity to solve and prevent domestic violence problems, stakeholders proposed:

Medical Services
Restoration-psychosocial counselling
Law enforcement
Legal services
Safe houses (shelter)
Welfare needs (feeding clothing provisions etc)

Referral from Ibi Isadi to registered and approved mediators.
A way of providing fast and effective responses to victims of domestic violence in need of assistance with emphasis on the grassroots.
A brand name (Ibi-Isadi) that can easily register in the mind of the grassroots and that will be of practical value to them whilst maintaining international best practices.
Building on existing services and programmes VAPPMC, emergency hotline (112), family support unit, and the activities of some civil society organisations.
Public sensitisation to raise awareness of the services.
Amendment of the VAPP Law to institutionalise Ibi-Isad (2 years).
Creation of an information portal to assess services available for citizens.

Stakeholders propose a one-stop solution for victims of domestic violence, with interdisciplinary services addressing the different needs of victims and also aimed at prevention and law enforcement. This should be combined with awareness raising to ensure the services reach the target groups.

The literature on effectiveness of responses to domestic violence is equally abundant. The World Health Organisation, Global strategy for women’s, children’s and adolescents’ health (2016–2030), recommends the following approaches:

Minimise children's exposure to violence.
Improve communication skills through training.
Strengthen economic support for families.
Change and challenge the social norms that extend men's power over women; empower and educate women and girls.
Eliminate gender discrimination in employment and education.
Establish protective environments.

Many systematic reviews have been made of research on effective interventions for domestic violence. Reviewers complain that outcomes of interventions are not well defined, so the effectiveness of different methods cannot be compared or even monitored.

Kiani et al (A systematic review: Empowerment interventions to reduce domestic violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, May–June 2021) find that interventions that empowered women in terms of their economic capability were more effective in reducing violence than those that did not involve an economic perspective. Community interventions reduced the amount of violence and were cost-effective but were time-consuming.

What types of responses have been found to be effective? A review of policing interventions by Australian researchers shows that police attendance by itself has a major preventive effect on persistent domestic violence. Arresting the perpetrator, bringing charges and punishments do not seem to add much to that effect. Protection orders are moderately effective, in particular when the perpetrator and the victim are not in an intimate relationship (anymore). The review also contains evidence on the effects of victim statements, witness statements and ways to collect evidence on police decisions to follow up on cases. See also this systematic review of Gender Responsive Policing initiatives commissioned by UKAid. In the United States, the use of mandatory arrest and other criminal justice interventions is seriously questioned (see also the book from Leigh Goodmark: Decriminalizing domestic violence: A balanced policy approach to intimate partner violence, 2018).

An important trend in domestic violence responses is to increase victims’ voice and participation in determining what should happen (see M.P. Koss, J. White, and E.C. Lopez, Victim voice in reenvisioning responses to sexual and physical violence nationally and internationally, American Psychologist 2017, pp.1019-1030). Victims are likely to want a say in how interventions:

Have different components, such as counselling, couple therapy, therapy for perpetrators, mediation, arrests, involving a court, incarceration or other sanctions.
Impact their relationship with the perpetrator, family and community.
Include interaction with the perpetrator, for instance in family therapy or mediation.
Influence the wellbeing of children.

Ogbe et al (A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors, PLoS ONE 2020) find that support services that have strong linkages with communities and are community focused seem to have significant effects on mental health outcomes and access to resources for victims.

A recent publication in the British Medical Journal (2020) reviews the literature on the implementation and effectiveness of the one stop centre model for intimate partner and sexual violence in low- and middle-income countries. This article finds 15 barriers and seven enablers, which seem relevant to the proposal. Three models are discussed: the hospital-based centre, the stand-alone centre, and the NGO-run centre. The main barriers to scaling one-stop-centres are poor connections to justice sector services (the police), staffing (availability of all disciplines in the centres), availability in communities (in particular for the hospital based centres), and financial sustainability.

The study recommends investigating lower cost alternatives, such as service delivery through primary healthcare providers. Enablers found in a previous study (Manuela Colombini Colleen Dockerty Susannah H. Mayhew, Barriers and Facilitators to Integrating Health Service Responses to Intimate Partner Violence in Low‐ and Middle‐Income Countries: A Comparative Health Systems and Service Analysis, Studies in Family Planning 2017, p. 178 ff.) include:

Availability of clear guidelines, policies, or protocols.
Management support.
Intersectoral coordination with clear, accessible on‐site and off‐site referral options.
Adequate and trained staff with accepting and empathetic attitudes toward women who have experienced IPV.
Initial and ongoing training for health workers.
A supportive and supervised environment in which to enact new IPV protocols.

The following elements of the proposal are very much supported by the literature:

Interventions aimed at early intervention to improve the situation, counselling and mediation, in combination with policing and legal interventions, including the ones aimed at restorative justice where needed (compensation).
Improving the probability that victims actually use the services.
Using a clear point of access, a brand-name, and an information portal that informs victims about the services they will actually get.
An integrated, multidisciplinary “one-stop” response, building on existing services.
Institutional cooperation.

The following suggestions can strengthen the proposal:

a. Defining outcomes in a systematic way, so progress can be monitored. See the section on neighbour disputes for how this can be done.
b. Investigating the effectiveness of proposed interventions. There is vast experience with assistance for domestic violence. It requires interventions supporting the victim, but also sensitising, influencing or sanctioning the perpetrator. Interventions may be needed in their relationship, in their ideas about norms, in the socio-economic environment and in the community. Given this complexity, it cannot be expected that individual practitioners will know what should be done. It is therefore worthwhile to invest in guidelines specifying and standardising the actual assistance for the victims, and in continuous learning and improvement.
c. This work can focus on the extensive body of research on effective domestic violence interventions in Nigeria and in similar settings. It should be informed by best practices from justice practitioners who already deal with domestic violence cases in Ogun State.

Designing the assistance in a way that considers the preferences and needs of individual victims (see the literature above on victims needs to have a say and participate in selecting interventions).
Connected to this: focusing on increasing the probability that victims actually use the services (see under 2).
Similarly, the models for service delivery have been researched. Much has been tried and tested in similar settings in Nigeria and beyond. Barriers and enablers for One stop centres have been studied extensively. We recommend considering the best way the interventions can be delivered in Ogun State, given:

a. The financial resources realistically available.
b. The availability of knowledge from different disciplines at the point of delivery.
c. How current services can be scaled and improved.
d. The finding that support leads to better results if it is grounded in the community.

Table of Contents

Summary

1. Supporting Civil Justice Transformation Dialogues and Strategy

2. Capacity needed

3. Increasing fair resolution rates - what works?

5. Enabling environment

6. Conclusion

Contact information

Justice Dashboard

Justice Dashboard

4. Game-changing services proposed

4.1 Game-changing services initially proposed and considered

View References

IN FOCUS:
MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSES

Community Justice Services

User-friendly Contracts and Other Legal Documents

Platforms offering mandatory one-stop dispute resolution

Problem-solving courts for crime

Claiming services helping people to access vital public services

Prevention programmes or services

Online information, advice and representation

Community Justice Services

Platforms offering mandatory one-stop dispute resolution

People-centred online information

4.2 Integrated resolution for neighbour disputes

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will develop and use informal/local dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve neighbour disputes.

4.3 Preventing and resolving land conflicts

PROPOSAL:
to keep local records of land ownership for the people of Ogun State.

4.4 Preventing and resolving family (separation) conflicts

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will have access to improved resolution of family disputes (related to both formal and traditional marriages)

4.5 Responsive services for domestic violence

PROPOSAL:
Ogun State people will have fast and effective access to protection in the event of domestic violence.

Justice Dashboard

Contact us

Follow us

Navigation

4. Game-changing services proposed

4.1 Game-changing services initially proposed and considered

IN FOCUS: MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSES

Community Justice Services

Platforms offering mandatory one-stop dispute resolution

People-centred online information

4.2 Integrated resolution for neighbour disputes

PROPOSAL: Ogun people will develop and use informal/local dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve neighbour disputes.

4.3 Preventing and resolving land conflicts

PROPOSAL: to keep local records of land ownership for the people of Ogun State.

4.4 Preventing and resolving family (separation) conflicts

PROPOSAL: Ogun people will have access to improved resolution of family disputes (related to both formal and traditional marriages)

4.5 Responsive services for domestic violence

PROPOSAL: Ogun State people will have fast and effective access to protection in the event of domestic violence.

Contact us

Follow us

Navigation

IN FOCUS:
MULTI-DOOR COURTHOUSES

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will develop and use informal/local dispute resolution mechanisms to resolve neighbour disputes.

PROPOSAL:
to keep local records of land ownership for the people of Ogun State.

PROPOSAL:
Ogun people will have access to improved resolution of family disputes (related to both formal and traditional marriages)

PROPOSAL:
Ogun State people will have fast and effective access to protection in the event of domestic violence.