1. Author: Maya Gainer Professor Jennifer Widner, Director Pallavi Nuka, Associate Director FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Following the adoption of a new constitution in 2010, Kenya launched several reforms designed to restore the independence of the judiciary, improve efficiency, and increase transparency. Named Chief Justice in 2011, Dr. Willy Mutunga created an ombudsperson’s office to respond to citizen complaints and established a Judicial Transformation Steering Committee to improve case management, build capacity, and improve accountability in the court system. Overview In its 2012 Action Plan, Kenya committed to ensuring transparency in its justice system with a focus on public vetting of judges, use of new technologies to reduce delay and improve fairness, and greater transparency in the case allocation system. The OGP commitments supported reforms the Judicial Transformation Steering Committee had already launched as part of the process of operationalizing Kenya’s new constitution. OGP Commitment Willy Mutunga, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the head of the judiciary helped set the overall vision for judicial reforms Joel Ngugi, a judge of the High Court and head of the Judiciary Transformation Secretariat, helped plan and lead the reforms, especially capacity building. Duncan Okello, Mutunga’s chief of staff, oversaw the management initiatives carried out under Chief Justice’s office Kennedy Bidali, the judiciary’s first Ombudsperson, dealt with all citizen complaints in matters related to court cases and procedures. Reform Champions The OGP coordinating agency, Kenya’s Information and Communication Technology Authority, played an indirect role in implementing the commitment to integrate new technologies in the judiciary. When initial attempts to implement a nationwide case management system fell short, the judiciary adopted a simpler tracking tool. The Authority did not actively collaborate with the judiciary or systematically follow implementation of the commitment. Turnover after the 2013 elections increased the challenge; the civil society organizations and civil servants who had worked on OGP in 2011-13 found it more difficult to secure high-level support from incoming politicians. OGP Contribution Policy Problems When reform started, Kenya’s judiciary was unable to deliver justice effectively. Delays and disorganization in the court system had resulted in a backlog of almost one million cases by 2011. Citizens had little confidence in the justice system because of corruption at almost every stage of the judicial process, from registry staff to judges. The process for hiring and disciplining officers and staff in the judiciary was severely compromised. Between 2011 and mid-2015, the initiative produced several changes in organization and practice, as well as some improvement in case management. The new Office of the Judiciary Ombudsperson responded to over 18,000 complaints by the end of 2013. As of 2013 the number of High Court stations had increased from 16 to 20. There were three new permanent appeals courts outside Nairobi. The judiciary also added 15 mobile courts. According to a case audit published in 2014, there were 426,000 pending cases. 311,000 had been pending for more than a year (backlog), down from an estimated one million in 2011. After over two years of design and testing, the Performance Management Directorate introduced a case-tracking tool to monitor case status, workloads, and delays. It created court-level performance contracts in April 2015. Court registrars developed manuals to standardize timelines for administrative procedures. The court introduced service charters and communication mechanisms such as Court Users Committees to improve transparency. Overall confidence in the judiciary has improved. In 2014, Gallup found 61% had confidence in the judiciary, the 5th highest rating in Africa. (Up from a low of 27% in 2009.) Key Accomplishments Efforts to move forward with judicial reforms faced several challenges: Internally, management structures and accountability mechanisms were weak, without any coordination between different parts of the court system. There were simply not enough employees, and those who were corrupt could be expected to try to undermine reforms. Computer skills and reliable electrical power were both in short supply in many parts of the court system. Key Challenges Email: iss@princeton.edu Website: successfulsocieties.princeton.edu TRANSFORMING THE COURTS: JUDICIAL SECTOR REFORMS IN KENYA, 2011-2014 The Judiciary stand at the Nairobi Intl. Trade Fair in September 2015. Source: www.judiciary. go.ke