Case study
The Justice Dialogue
Key takeaways
Trend Report 2021 – Delivering Justice / Case Study: The Justice Dialogue
Author: Kanan Dhru, Justice Innovation Advisor
Introduction
The HiiL virtual Justice Dialogue took place on Wednesday, 20th April 2022 from 09:00hrs-13:00hrs CEST.
High-level participants from Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, the Netherlands and USA participated in this Dialogue, which served as a basis for HiiL’s plenary “People-centred justice: how to make it happen systematically?” taking place on 1st June at the World Justice Forum. All the participants have significant expertise on issues at the forefront of applying people-centred justice approaches. The names and designations of the participants are shared in the table at the end of this report.
HiiL’s policy brief “Delivering people-centred justice: Rigorously” served as a basis for this Dialogue. The brief focuses on developing an integrated approach on people-centred justice (PCJ) and details five main investments of people-centred justice programming that we see emerging: data, evidence-based practice, game changing justice services, enabling environment as well as engagement and accountability.
The Justice Dialogue built on this premise and created an interactive conversation about implementing and scaling the people-centred approach in the justice space. In particular, it focused on the following questions for the participants to share their thoughts and experiences:
Focus questions:
- Why is it important to invest in systematically improving dispute resolution systems in a people-centred way?
- What are the enablers and impediments for the changemaking justice practitioners to make people-centred justice happen?
- How can we ensure the broad uptake of innovations in the justice space? What are some of the best practices?
- The groups most vulnerable to (systemic and daily) injustices within the population served
The Dialogue started with an opening speech by Dr Sam Muller, CEO and HiiL and a presentation on HiiL’s approach to people-centred justice by Prof (Dr) Maurits Barendretch. This presentation can be accessed here. The Dialogue aimed to get inputs of the participants on the four main hypotheses – which serve as the enablers and impediments to people-centred justice:
Enablers and impediments to people-centred justice:
- Time and resources to develop a program need to be available
- Learning more about the contents of programming is essential
- Right incentives must be in place for the change - Financial, performance, ethical
- And finally, there must be a certain degree of trust and cooperation between independent justice sector organisations
Stakeholders shared their thoughts and experiences on the above questions in small breakout sessions. Later, they shared key ideas from the breakout sessions with the larger group.
Key takeaways from the Dialogue
1. Why is it important to invest in systematically improving dispute resolution systems in a people-centred way?
The following key takeaways emerged during the Dialogue on the above question:
- 1.1 Current systems need a shake-up: Participants agreed that justice systems need a big shake-up and require a more people-centred approach. One stakeholder shared that currently, in the US justice system, a citizen has to finish 193 tasks to resolve one justice issue. The current structures impede the economic benefits that the justice system brings.
- 1.2 Focus on people’s problems: It is important to invest in people-centred justice because this is how we focus specifically on people's problems and those that are the most pressing justice needs of people. PCJ focuses on the data collected that leads us to align on innovations and how those can address what is needed.
- 1.3 Boosts investment: Developing PCJ programming gives external investors in the economy the confidence to invest in the system. Investors will not come when conflicts perpetuate. Governments need to invest in a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that investors are attracted to their countries. Stability is fruitful for economic growth and investments. Conflicts impede investment. Knowing and being able to count on the rules that apply is critical for economic activity. When the government invests in systematic improvement of dispute resolution, it helps with investment and growth of the economy. For example, investors who are interested in purchasing land, may not want to enter into a community where there is no stability and peace. In the case of land disputes, investing in dispute resolution systems helps with social and communal cohesion.
- 1.4 PCJ helps in preventing disputes: PCJ also helps prevent disputes. It does so by following the approach of the health care system, where it is systematically addressing root causes (in the justice sector).
- 1.5 Risk of not doing anything is very high: The fear of change among current stakeholders keeps change from taking place. More public outrage may be needed to bring change. Additionally, when you don't resolve the justice issues, they spill over into others such as assault, crime and so on. At the end of the day, it affects people's ability to live harmoniously and to contribute to society. There is always room for incremental innovation in the justice system. Status quo is harmful to a lot of people - and we must ask ourselves “what are we willing to risk with innovation?”
2. What are the enablers and impediments for the changemaking justice practitioners to make people-centred justice happen?
Most stakeholders validated the four hypotheses and emphasised that the enablers are also impediments. The same also applies to different components of PCJ.
2.1 Data:
- Data, data, data! Data is crucial in that it provides evidence for the ideas or messages that you may want to convey. Data is also about humanising the experience, for instance, taking a minister or parliamentarian along to showcase the justice experience of people.
- Lack of data is problematic and is pervasive. Without data you cannot know if you are making progress or not. Sometimes practitioners wander around in the dark and do not address the main issues with the help of data. When collected it enables practitioners to focus on the right issues.
- We need data on understanding what people need and expect, what the justice system is trying to accomplish and what it can deliver, and what people are expecting.
- Justice providers are helped by the data to decide on how we prioritise issues that are pertinent to the people. It can ensure resources are spent on resolutions and tools that people actually need and directing services towards those goals.
- Data collection has to be integrated in day to day systems. Data makes decision-making more objective. It introduces a layer of objectivity that helps in addressing the problems where data is not included. Part of why it is so difficult to introduce change is because people often do not see the capacity to continuously collect that data.
- In the USA, sometimes data is seen as supplemental to the opinion of lawyers or judges. We need to redefine data and showcase its benefits. Data is hugely important, and we do a lot of work in qualitative data. Some powerful data is the qualitative collective side - the emotions that underline the experience, collateral consequences - which often gets missed in the process.
- Regulatory sandboxes look at the results of innovations. We need data about demands and services. It all needs to come together in a big control room / dashboard. If you don't know the needs you continue with institutional approaches to justice.
2.2 Mindset:
- The mindset of justice practitioners is a very important criterion - as an enabler and as impediment. In a traditional system like that of justice delivery, it is often difficult to move out of current mindsets and embrace new innovations and approaches. Mindset is also an enabler when the leadership is open-minded.
- A judge, for example, focuses on the institutional justice system and sees the people who come before him/her, as if from outside of the system. If you continue to keep that mindset, people will continue to be dissatisfied. Those in the system need to accept and embrace the people-centred justice system. That will allow for an institutional shift from the traditional mindset.
2.3 Trust in Public Systems:
- Trust is a critical factor. While lack of trust is an impediment, a system that fosters trust is a very strong enabler for change. It takes time to create systems inducing trust between different actors and players in the system. This has to be factored in at all levels.
- Creating change goes back to establishing trust among the key stakeholders. Focus on what their needs are and empathising with the actual people who will be using new products/services on offer. This helps the process of scale. Changemakers must take two things seriously: a) build trust, b) understand your audience.
2.4 Incentives:
- Sometimes even the best of the initiatives are not always applied in practice or implemented. How do we solve the problem of having innovation that is then not used? How do we ensure that the innovation we have is implemented? We need the right incentive structure.
- Legal practitioners at times create impediments for change initiatives by encouraging people to resort to the formal justice mechanisms and by it as the only point of redressal. It becomes an issue of self-preservation for them. The economic incentives of legal practitioners then guide how people interact with the system.
- A strong push back from the legal practitioners is a big impediment across countries. The current business model for lawyers prevents change from taking place. If decisions are transferred away from the legal system, then they lose their fees and income.
- Justice innovations find this resistance directly. For example, DIY Law got a strong opposition from the Nigerian Bar in the beginning. They had to work with the Bar. They chose to have conversations about helping people and expanding access and stepping back from the economic question. It was framed in a way where they positioned themselves as delivering justice to people that is affordable and easy to access. They chose not to undermine the legal profession but rather cooperating together to deliver what people need.
- Right incentives can be developed and stakeholders can be mobilised by making service delivery effective. This can be a win-win-win situation for clients, lawyers, and innovations in the justice sector. It would also be an opportunity for lawyers to be more efficient in providing their services. When conversations are framed saying “The change creates an opportunity for lawyers to engage with people”, it is a more collaborative approach. However, there are occasional instances where authorities focus more on financial and political aspects of change rather than fulfilling the needs of people.
- Different agencies work in silos. Human rights organisations, governments and other stakeholders lack a coordination mechanism, which is integral to implementing people-centred justice. A central coordinating mechanism is needed to facilitate dialogue, enable access to data and understanding on what works.
- Investing in people-centred justice from the government should not be limited only to finances. A more holistic investment is when people-centred justice is complemented within the existing institutions of justice.
2.5 Technology is a strong enabler for change.
2.6 Making a strong case:
- Making a case for people-centred justice depends on who the case is being made to. The case to be made for a private citizen differs from the one made to a practitioner on the field.
- The case can also be made in the form of outrage. Make the case in every single way, so make it for SMEs, for the vulnerable people, for GDP and economic growth, for issues related to women’s safety.
- Bringing different people together is also an important factor - as it is necessary to have a broad understanding and acceptance of people-centred justice from across the spectrum. An ecosystem has to be mobilised.
3. How can we ensure the broad uptake of innovations in the justice space? What are some of the best practices?
3.1 Scaling the innovation landscape:
- We need to appreciate that justice needs vary. After taking this into consideration, there is a need to tailor the innovation to specific justice needs. Formal justice systems might be losing ground but are still very important. There is a need for linkages (informal and formal), to be explored and put in place. Information about justice needs and justice journeys is needed in order to design services that fit these needs. Solutions may also look different in different cases. For example, developing guidelines can be a strong means for reconciliation between the parties.
- Innovation requires sufficient thought and proper planning. For innovation within the public institutions to happen, it needs the reorientation of stakeholders within the government to take on the challenges that come with change. The issues are not just about addressing the financial needs but also perspective and understanding on how a common ground can be created across the board in reframing the issue, or partnering with other stakeholders, including being open to private organisations and their value add.
- A successful intervention sometimes can lead to more people reporting their justice issues to the police or the courts. In terms of report rates, there may be higher numbers but at times different impact matrices may be needed to understand how the system responds to change.
- When there is more awareness and a greater demand to push for better services, it gives suppliers in the private and public sectors an idea of where people and innovators should focus their investments and energies.
- Innovations can be scaled by finding a balance between making an impact vs. something that can become self-sufficient. A better way to scale is via collaboration of projects.
- Services around dispute resolution that are designed around needs provide better solutions. With better functioning services you are preventing other legal problems down the line (such as land problems that can escalate into crime and neighbourhood problems).
3.2 The role of community justice services:
- Community justice systems are for many people the first point of contact. Allowing issues to be resolved on the community level can at times be faster, cheaper and more relevant. It is also important to allow the community to support the resolutions.
- Communities are diverse.So justice needs as well as potential resolutions sought vary. There are also complaints about dealings with the formal system. Connecting formal and informal systems is critical. In Lagos, the informally set up Citizens Mediation Centre is very successful. People can write and ask if they can be helped with their ongoing dispute. The centre will invite the parties and try to negate the issue. This was very successful and over 20,000 resolutions are possible each month.
- Empowering people is very important. People can be made aware that they can resolve disputes by themselves through taking part in the dialogue and understanding their rights. People can be made to understand what services and alternatives are available to them (mediation, certain offices and departments, etc). Disputes can be resolved through community based solutions that are most familiar to the people, their culture and the needs of the given community. This is cheaper, faster, more relevant to the people's lives, fits their cultural context and that translates into more acceptance. Leave the formal system for only the most critical issues.
- What is needed to make people-centred justice work or to enhance accessibility in the rural and local communities (people might know where to go and who to talk to) is informing people about what's available to them and providing easy access to these options. The typical innovator perspective is needed here to understand what is working and what is delivering for people.
- Thinking of community in a different sense also helps. For example, there are now online communities of homeowners. Such examples show that community is not only physical.
- In Uganda, in 2007, the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group, and Ugandan army started making efforts to explore avenues for peacemaking and conflict resolution in different communities. The justice sector was mandated to explore new avenues to reach justice in communities. One of the approaches was through the traditional justice mechanisms. But it was also observed that other informal justice actors (NGO, religious institutions, opinion leaders) could contribute to this. Guidelines were needed to streamline this. So the commission has developed guidelines for the use of informal justice systems. These guidelines identified cultural practices that do not violate human rights that are allowed to be performed in reconciliation attempts. Guidelines also helped to inform the decisions made by the various actors and to mediate conflicts.
- The question is: how do we identify the individuals in communities that are needed to promote community justice? We have to be careful in what capacity these individuals contribute. Community should not be defined in a narrow sense. We have to be cautious of the capacity in which we are drawing people in.
3.3 What is needed to make people-centred justice work?
- Access to peace is access to justice. Justice is fundamentally based on peace and security and rule of law.
- It is about creating awareness of fundamental rights. Making the institutions promoting human rights work stronger. Focusing on how we can get them to fulfil their mandate more effectively. How can the courts and judiciary work better? Access to the internet and radio will help in raising awareness and helping people in knowing and exercising one's rights.
- Importance of awareness: In order to sustain people-centred justice you need rights and people who know their rights so that they push the suppliers for better services.
- Involving the right set of stakeholders - a multistakeholder approach - can address half of the problems with the lack of people-centred approach.
- A strong communication approach helps people-centred justice programming.
- People-centred justice also needs newer models of service delivery that can scale and can take the shape of concrete programmes on ground.
3.4 Nurturing and investing in an ecosystem for change:
- The government has a big role to play in enabling the change. Enabling regulations and policies have to be created for change to be sustainable.
- We need a stable environment within the countries to make people-centred justice happen. Security and a peaceful background are paramount to realise people-centred justice.
- Governments can legislate to make change sustainable (for example, by mandating the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching a lawyer).
- We spend a lot of time telling the government how to work with the private sector but the reverse is also true. It's about understanding the environment from both sides.
- Scaling people-centred justice is a cross-sectoral work. The approach is mirrored in SDG16. The notions of triggering the business sector on how their actions impact the justice sector also need to be examined. The newer technologies, such as facial recognition software, create potentially harmful effects which also need dialogue.
Summary
We had a number of hypotheses about what makes people-centred justice happen: time and resources, knowledge, incentives and trust. A big enabler is conversations like these that bring a diverse group of people together to share different perspectives.
Three headlines
1. Make the case (if you want to make it work, you have to make the case)
2. Bring the right stakeholder together (it’s change management)
- users (public, communities)
- stakeholders in the system (judges, lawyers)
- stakeholder who can be a justice champion (somebody who is pulling it off)
- the other sectors (that you may need to bring along)
3. Creating the enabling environment.
- the rules and regulations
- changing the risk parameters (risk of change vs risk of doing nothing)
- importance of trust, incentives, outcome indicators
List of the participants
We had a number of hypotheses about what makes people-centred justice happen: time and resources, knowledge, incentives and trust. A big enabler is conversations like these that bring a diverse group of people together to share different perspectives.
Akingbolahan Adeniran
Partner, Awodi & Co.
Former Attorney General, Ogun State, Nigeria
Maha Jweied
Non-Resident Fellow
Center on International Cooperation, New York University, USA
Paul Kimalu
Director, Planning and Organisational Performance
Judiciary Kenya
Rose Wachuka
Chief of Staff, Office of the Chief Justice of the Republic of Kenya and President of the Supreme Court of Kenya
Jane Adongo
Senior Sociologist
Uganda Law Reforms Commission
Folusho Obienu
Director of Citizens Rights
Ogun State, Nigeria
Justice Khobo
Innovative Justice Reform Judge
Kaduna State, Nigeria
Chinedu Agu
Secretary of Imo State Bar Association,
Imo State, Nigeria
Natalie Anne Knowlton
Director, Special Projects
Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System (IAALS), USA
Gerald Abila
Founder
BarefootLaw, Uganda
Angela Lungati
Executive Director
Ushahidi, Kenya
Odunoluwa Longe
Co-founder
TLP Advisory, Nigeria/UK
Table of Contents
