No Fair Justice Without Independent Judiciary

There is little dispute over the major economic achievements of the ruling Developmental Democrats, whose latest dissociation from the prefix ‘revolutionary’ has created a wildfire of speculation and analyses within the politically active population of the nation. Their commitment in transforming the nation’s economy from its war-torn state to stability is well recorded within all the available public records. International institutions continue to provide them with recognition, having reduced the volatility of the economy by virtue of strengthening its fundamentals.
Macroeconomic analyses released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) since 2003/04, for instance, acclaim the state under the Developmentalists for the sound public finance management. A sound and resilient public finance management has played its part in the fast economic growth the country has witnessed under the Developmental Democrats.
Of course, this does not mean that international institutions, be it the IMF or others, would agree on their expansionary fiscal policy. There remains a continuous dispute over the policy priorities of the government and their negative externalities, from hyperinflation to exchange rate depreciation. Whereas the international institutions maintain that restraint in fiscal policy is important in sustaining economic growth and stabilising prices, not to mention avoiding economic overheating, the Developmenalists have been steadfast in standing for an ever-increasing fiscal pie that feeds both their economic and political interests.
Unlike the relative consensus on the economic achievements of the EPRDFites in the past, the dispute over the social and political progress of the nation remains chaotic. No line of consensus seems to exist between the ruling Developmentalists and their fierce critics.
This is especially true when it comes to the issue of justice. In what could be described as a turbulent ocean of debate, the issue of justice has always been a very sensitive aspect driving both sides of the aisle to the edges of emotion. These are also times that the institutionalism of the Developmentalists and the idealism of their opponents come to the fore.
Sticking to their institutional argument, the EPRDFites often argue that their administration has brought justice all the more closer to the people. Decentralisation of judicial institutions is the ethos that has brought about brighter days over the past two decades, they argue. As a result, they state, the sectoral realities have transformed in a way that has never been seen before.
A clear delineation of responsibility between the various tiers of the judicial system, a reduction in lag time of accessing justice, the establishment of structures to serve peculiar cases and progressive modernisation of the legal instruments of the nation are just some of the lines they mention whenever they describe their achievements. Of course, their argument has never been absolutist in that they accept there is a lot that needs to be done.
For their critics, however, there is nothing that describes the fragility of the system the Developmentalists are attempting to build more clearly than the justice system. Justice is still a pipedream in the country, for the institutional and operational functions of the judicial system remain very poor, they argue. This is because the judicial system is deprived of the essential characters necessary to make it a strong pole within the power matrix. Instead, it is left to be subservient to a rather powerful and invincible executive.
For a keen observer, however, the reality lies somewhere in between. Whereas it is true that access to justice has seen improvements, with the progressive decentralisation policy of the Developmental Democrats, the operations of the judicial system continue to be stained with problems.
The good part of the story is that the ruling EPRDFites seem to have a proper grasp of the gap between what is expected from the judicial system, as declared in the Constitution, and what it is living for. This is exactly why they initiated a new governance reform program for the sector.
Muktar Kedir, the reform Cesar, has recently said that the new initiative could mainstream the sense of service within the staff of the system. In ordering his regional counterparts to be committed to the reform agenda, Muktar noted that it is now time to correct the ills of the system, so that justice could be served to citizens.
Of course, the agenda of reform is not new to the system. The Justice Sector Reform Program (JSRP) – one of the pillars of the Plan for Accelerated & Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP), the predecessor of the Growth & Transformation Plan (GTP) – has been implemented since 2005. If one is to go by the governmental records, therefore, this has resulted in a sharp increase in graduates of law, better staffing of local level judicial bodies, enhanced automation of operations and better integration between the varying parts of the system. A resultant outcome of these improvements has been a reduced lag time in accessing justice and a betterment of its quality.
There has always been an essential bias in all the attempts to improve the system, however. And this bias involves the little attention provided to the independence of the system and the quality of it service.
A rational analysis of power politics in the nation, under the leadership of the Developmental Democrats, would illustrate that power is hugely skewed towards the executive. An executive that continues to gain weight with each day is seen reducing the space for the other two poles of power – the legislative and the judiciary.
As much as the legislative is seen translating the intents of the executive into laws, the judiciary, by and large, is seen living under the shadows of the overweight executive. Regardless of some individual cases, therefore, effective check and balance in the system is a way off.
It seems that this dynamic is consuming the energy of reforms, so that they are not able to bring any considerable change in the quality of the service the justice system provides to citizens. It is not just a few times that the integrity of the system has been placed under question for operating below expectations.
Individuals, businesses and institutions are seen complaining about the extent of lag and the unfairness the system entertains. Certainly, the system is reducing itself as a breeding ground of incompetence, patrimony and political loyalty. Vibrancy has become a rare trait within it.
Global evidence, however, shows that an effective and competent justice system could not be created unless it remains independent. Reforms meant to bring the system up to constitutional standards, therefore, ought to give due attention to the essential traits of the system that would enable it to serve the people fairly.
Taking the justice system out of the shadows of power politics and allowing it to sail through the paths of competence ought to be the focus of the reforms that Muktar is stirring. It is only then that the reforms could be able to create a system that would underpin the economic ambitions of the nation.
PUBLISHED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2014 [ VOL 14 ,NO 721] 
http://addisfortune.net/columns/no-fair-justice-without-independent-judiciary/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ፓርቲው ምርጫ ቦርድ ከተፅዕኖ ነፃ ሳይሆን የምርጫ ጊዜ ሰሌዳ ማውጣቱን ተቃወመ

የሐዋሳ ሐይቅ ትሩፋት

በሲዳማ ክልል የትግራይ ተወላጆች ምክክር