FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

Access to Justice Committees

Established at

Makadara, Meru and Migori Law Courts.

Evaluator: Margaret Murpus

March 16th , 2011

Contents

List Annexes.......................................................................................................................................32

List of Abbreviations..........................................................................................................................32

Acknowledgement..............................................................................................................................32

1. Executive Summary..........................................................................................................................3

1.1. Short Description of the Implementing Organization and the Project.........................................3

1.2. Objectives of the assignment and Procedures chosen and Limitations......................................43

1.3. Summary of major results and recommendations......................................................................54

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF LRF AND THE CUC/AJC.............................................75

2.1. Description of the assignment....................................................................................................97

3. EVALUATION FINDINGS.........................................................................................................108

3.1. Programme Goal.......................................................................................................................108

3.2. Overall Assessment of the Implementation..............................................................................108

3.3. Programme Implementation process and impact......................................................................118

3.3.1. Factors facilitating or hampering programme implementation............................................118

3.4. Success, Opportunities, Challenges, Lessons Learnt And Best Practices................................149

3.4.1. Meru....................................................................................................................................1410

3.4.2. Makadara............................................................................................................................1815

3.4.3. Migori.................................................................................................................................2017

3.5. Trends.....................................................................................................................................2420

4. RECOMMENDATIONS/STRATEGIES...................................................................................2420

5. CONCLUSIONS........................................................................................................................2520

1. The Consultancy Guidelines( Methodology)

a) Review and analyse the AJC reports;

b) Carry out interviews with key stakeholders within the Migori, Meru and

Makadara AJCs;

c) Undertake a comparative analysis and recommendations of the Judiciary

fledged Court users Committee (CUC)and the LRF AJC concept;

d) Identify and document the roles of paralegals in the administration of

Justice;

Paralegal play a crucial role when it comes to enhancing a ccess to justice .

they major they play include

1.The obligation includes a paralegal’s duty to

assist in maintaining the security of court facilities, to refrain from inappropriate

public

statements, and the obligation to prevent unauthorized practice.

2. An aspect of supporting the justice system is ensuring that its facilities

remain saf

3. When making statements to the media with, or on behalf of, a client, a

paralegal must be

mindful of his or her obligations to act in the client’s best interests and

within the scope

of his or her instructions from the client

Researching legal documents Drafting contracts, mortgages, separation agreements and trust instruments Helping prepare legal arguments, draft pleadings and motions Investigating cases Locating witnesses Obtaining affidavits and organizing depositions Organizing and tracking case files Providing trial assistance

Challenges dacing paralegals:

Despite the major and key role they play paralegals have the following

challenges

Most paralegals do not have basic materials and

equipment like,computers ,desks ,chairs and good

tables for effectiveness of their work

Paralegals being human right defenders are faced

with security issues including getting and receiveing

anonymous call from prisoners of their relatives

Most papralegals say they induction process when

joining LRF was not adequate and therefore it takes

them time to pick up on issues

Travelling within and outside the station is

challenging since they do not have floats at their

stations

According to some of them LRF do not care for

them so much.Thery are taken as lower level of staff

. their perception is still low on this area

Motivation when it comes to payment or

renumeration is concerne.They feel like they have

alot of work yet the organisation still do not

consider them when it comes to pay increament

They face challenges communicating with the

secretariat and when they have issues the

secretariat takes time to respond

e) Identify the role and the intervention of the court users committee with

registrars at all court stations

Recommendations for the court users committees

Sustainability of the CUCs need to be streghened,

most would not meet without the support of LRF

Deliberations of CUCs are not adequately followed,

most of what is discussed remains in paper work

CUCs need to be institutionalised so that the

judiciary takes it upon itself to manage and fund the

process . CUC policy or bill need to be established to

make this a reality

There is need for cosnsitency for CUC members and

especially from the government departments to

avoid the situation where the new comers learn the

deliberations .This is vital for meaningful

participation

Sometimes the chair who is the judiciary( Margistate

) are intimidative and therefore most of the

members are not free to talk

Margsittrates and judiciary need to be trained on

CUC concept before it is roled out in a certain court

f) Document trends, best practices, challenges, successes and lessons learnt;

Go to the web and do the search on best practises and trends on paralegalism

and court users committee

g) Identify gaps and opportunities for LRF future engagement especially

within the constitutional frameworks on judicial reforms.

GAPS

Our engagement with judiciary is reactionary and not planned

While engaging with judiciary we do not use the right judiacry acceptable

processes

Sometimes we have taken issues concerning a specific station directly to

registrar of high court instead of sorting them out in a specific station

Opportunities

List all the new bills and opportunites that LRF can exploit and utilise

4. Expected Outputs

At the end of this consultancy, the consultant is expected to deliver the

following:

a) A detailed report highlighting best practices, trends, successes, challenge

opportunities and strategies ;

b) Validate the findings of the exercise in a one (1) hour presentation session

with stakeholders;

c) LRF’s engagement strategy with the judiciary within the new constitutional

structures;

Share final hard and soft copies of the findings with LRF

Recommendations

It is therefore

recommended that;

a. LRF to collaborate and lobby The Ministry of Justice, National Cohesion and Constitution needs to pearhead the development of an administration of justice policy in Kenya. This would address

principles of access to justice and public interest education.

b. The role and recognition of paralegals within the administration of justice needs be

realized through a legal aid and awareness policy.

c. The decentralization of the judiciary is essential through the creation of the Small

Claims Court and Courts of Petty Session to deal with small claims and petty crimes

respectively. These should be located at the location which is the lowest administrative

unit and presided over by paralegals.

d. There is need to recognize the community justice systems which provide alternative

dispute resolution mechanism.

In conclusion, these challenges in lower eastern provi

Table 1List Annexes

List of Abbreviations

CJS:

LRF

Include more abbreviatiosn

Acknowledgement

1. Executive Summary

1.1.Short Description of the Implementing Organization and the

Programme

Legal Resources Foundation Trust is a human rights organization that exists to promote

access to justice for the poor, marginalised and vulnerable people in Kenya. Access to justice

is a fundamental human right guaranteed by the new constitution of Kenya and international

instruments to which Kenya is bound.

The foundation’s niche is in supporting access to justice and related systems so that they work

for those who are made poor, marginalised, excluded and vulnerable in society. LRF’S

approach has been to focus on strengthening the independence and integrity of both formal

and informal justice systems and creating strategic partnerships with actors in the justice and

administration of justice. The above strategy has been used to respond to gaps in legal

protection, legal aid and awareness, counsel adjudication, enforcement and good governance.

To this end the Foundation sought to establish Access to Justice Committees also Known as

Court Users Committees and entrenching them as an important component of access to

justice. The structure of these committees is in such a way that it follows the hierarchy of the

provincial administration i.e. district to province and finally the national level. However the

composition of the committees varies from one area to another depending on the specific

needs of that particular jurisdiction.

The access to justice committee programme is based on the current LRF’S strategic plan for

years 2009-2013 and a concept paper on access to justice committees. The committees were

established as an initiative to promote coordination collaboration and communication among

the criminal justice actors in addressing the challenges in the administration of justice.

1.2. Objectives of the assignment and Procedures chosen and Limitations

The overall goal of the assignment is to conduct an evaluation on the Access to Justice

Committees (AJC) established by LRF in Makadara, Migori and Meru court station and

establish best practices trends successes challenges opportunities and strategies. LRF’S

engagement strategy with the judiciary within the new constitutional structures.

The evaluation looks at the programme objectives, factors facilitating or hampering

programme implementation, outlines the successes, challenges best practice and opportunities

and gives recommendations.

The exercise took over four weeks (4) starting from 9th February 2011 and the methodology

used encompassed reference to available written documentation /literature review, direct

observation, listening and field visits. The information collected was analysed, further

questions discussed, clarified and the way forward planned.

The exercise begun with the evaluator analysing the TOR for deeper understanding,

guidelines questions for the respondents to be interviewed was developed.

The major limitation that the evaluator encountered during this exercise was interviewing

some of the stakeholders like the police and the time allocated for the interviews was not

sufficient. Most of the actors were working which become difficult to find time to interview

them. The evaluator also fell ill immediately after the interviews.

1.3.Summary of major results and recommendations

Objective Impact Gaps Recommendations

Role of paralegalsLRF strategic plan

Finding Recommendation

LRF’S strategic Plan and concept

paper lacks clear performance

indicators in its objectives. This made

it difficult for the evaluator to track

the achievements of some of the broad

objectives.

Develop a clear Monitoring and

Evaluation system with measurable

indicators.

Objectives need to be Specific,

Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and

Time bounded (SMART).

LRF should consider to review its

strategic plan to realign itself with the

current constitutional dispensation.

For the past three years, the meetings

were not broken into specific

quarterly plans that would facilitate

smooth implementing and monitoring

and effective tracking of changes that

arise in the court stations of

implementation.

The evaluator recommends that in the

next year a work plan be prepared.

This will take care of the changing

needs and emerging issues thus

facilitating ease in monitoring of

progress and tracking changes in the

course of implementation.

Establishsment of information desk at

the courts: This has not been set to

date and it may The information desks

that ought to been set up by LRF that

has not been realized but LRF is

leading the process is still working on

it.

LRF should fast track the process of

setting up the information desk so that

it can assist the public.

LRF managed to facilitate the

AJC/CUC meetings although not all

the quarterly meetings as required and

out of these meetings challenges

facing the criminal justice system wer

as discussed and a way forward given.

The AJC/CUC meetings should be

quarterly, allocated enough time and

resources and all the members should

be involved in setting the agenda of

the meetings. Minutes of these

meetings to be sent to the participants

The meetings were highly appreciated

by the committee members but they

request for more meetings.

All the quarterly meetings were not

facilitated because of financial

constraints.

on in time.

The AJC/CUC to constitute resource

mobilization committees to explore

means and ways of raising funds from

other sources. To further engage the

judicial service commission to

institutionalize the committees and

support them financially.

Weak documentation of AJC/CUC:

The AJC/CUC which falls under the

Administration of Justice programme

has a monitoring system in place but

it is not well documented. The

evaluator was only given a monitoring

tool report done once for the past

three years from two stations (Migori

and Makadara) and none for Meru.

The Access to Justice Programme

improves and documents its

monitoring framework.AJC and CUC

are noble approaches that should be

documented and patented by LRF

before other NGOs pick it up

Two of the AJC’S (Meru and

Makadara) have not fully realized the

objective of forming a task force or

subdivision for effective management

and follow-up of the committees’

activities except Migori.

The AJC/CUC’S re-focuses its efforts

in forming the task force and

subdivision.

The LRF has facilitated capacity

building of the actors after an

identification of capacity gaps that led

to the training of prison officers,

general police and administration

police on human rights, handling of

sexual violence in 2009/2010.

The AJC/CUC should check on the

trained personnel to see their progress

and to organize for more training.

AJC/CUC approach to enhance access

to justice is not instituionalised by the

judiciary, its establishment depends

entirely on the respective officer and

AJC/CUC should be reviewed and

realigned with the Kenya

constitutional requirement and LRF in

collaboaration with the judiciary to

its effectiveness depends on the

efforts of the resident margistrate who

chairs the sessions

prepare a bill or policy AJC/CUC

Follow up on issues discussed during

the AJC/CUC is very little , there is

thefore the risk of AJC

recommendation not being

implemented

Within the AJC should be small

committee that is tasked with ensuring

all the recommdendations are

followed up.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION OF LRF AND THE CUC/AJC

Legal Resources Foundation Trust (LRF) is a national civil society organization founded in

1993. LRF initially operated as a project of Kenya Human Rights Commission (KHRC) until

August 2000 when it was registered as a Trust under the Trustees (Perpetual Succession) Act

Chapter 164, Law of Kenya.

LRF exists to promote access to justice for the poor, vulnerable and excluded members of the

society either as individuals or groups. The foundations vision is ‘’A Just and Equitable

society’’ and the mission is inspired by the vision which is ‘’to be a resource for the poor,

vulnerable and marginalised through participatory interventions and mutual partnerships’’.

The foundations niche is in supporting access to justice and related systems so that they work

for those that are made poor, marginalised, and vulnerable and excluded in society. LRF

defines access to justice in the context of the ease with which ordinary people are able to

make use of the law, the legal procedures and the institutions of justice to determine their

legal problems in general and how they are able to claim their rights in particular.

LRF’S approach has been to focus on strengthening the independence and integrity of both

formal and informal justice systems and creating strategic partnerships with actors in the

justice and administration sector towards being responsive and effective in meeting the gaps

or challenges in the administration of justice. The above strategy has been used to respond to

gaps in legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counsel, adjudication, enforcement and

good governance.

To address the challenges of ensuring justice for all the Foundation in its 2009 – 2013

strategic plan sought to formulate programmatic interventions using four main approaches

that are distinct in themselves but complement each other with a view to enhancing social

justice. These approaches namely Human Resource Capability Approach, Paralegal Approach

and Practice Advocacy approach.

Further the foundation developed programmes based on thematic considerations. One of the

programmes is the Administration of Justice Programme. This programme has repositioned

itself to address the sources of injustices within the administration of justice system as a

whole from the point of arrest through the final determination of cases. LRF has utilized

opportunities that have emerged while implementing the Kenya Prison Paralegal Project

(KPPP) and scaling up its impact on judicial performance especially advocacy around

sentencing, case management and increased enforcement of accused persons right and victim

approach sensitivity. This thematic area has been delivered through two projects namely;

Judicial Participation Project and Penal Reform Project.

The penal reform project focuses on building the capacity of poor inmates to engage the

criminal justice system. This project is being conducted by a network of state and non-state

actors where the Foundation is the lead implementing agency. This project is hosted by the

Kenya Prison Service (KPS) currently based in Meru GK prison, Kamiti Maximum Security

prison, Nairobi Remand and Allocation prison and Migori GK prison and nineteen (19) other

prisons.

The Judicial Participation project (JPP) focuses on promoting communication collaboration

and coordination among the actors within the criminal justice system through the

establishment and revival of Access Justice Committees. Lack of communication amongst the

criminal justice actors led to blame games amongst the actors which translates to delays in

completion of cases, delays in judgement delivery, lack of cooperation, coordination and

communication and delays in case investigations.

2.1.Description of the assignment

This evaluation sets out to review and evaluate Access to Justice Committee (AJC) as

established by the Foundation in Migori, Makadara and Meru law courts and to establish best

practices, trends, successes, challenges and make recommendations.

The evaluator looked at the programme goals and objectives and analyses in detail the

programme activities in detail.

Before the start of the evaluation, LRF suggested that the evaluator develops and suggests a

programme and a timetable for the evaluation in the three court stations, which was then

discussed with the evaluator and adapted. Beforehand the evaluator developed interview

guidelines for the Access to justice Committee members.

This exercise took over four (4) weeks starting from 9th February 2011,and the methodology

used encompassed reference to select written material/documentation or literature review,

direct observation, listening, field visits and interviews to key respondents.

The interviews /meetings conducted during the evaluation were;

a) Meru

Meeting the Chief Magistrate, the District Magistrate 1, The Court Prosecutor, Two (2)

Ripples International representatives, the Meru bar association chairperson, the Deputy

District Children Officer, the officer-in-charge of the Meru men GK Prison and the officer-in-

charge Meru Women GK Prison, the liaison officer Meru GK Prison, the District Probation

and Aftercare Services Officer and the paralegal stationed in the region.

b) Makadara

-meeting the deputy officer-in-charge and the liaison officer at the Nairobi Remand and

Allocation Prison, the children officer, the probation and aftercare services officer, the officer-

in-charge and head of security Kamiti Maximum Security Prison, the Chief Magistrate and a

Participatory SWOT of the AJC with three (3) paralegal officers stationed at Kamiti

Maximum Security Prison and Industrial Area Allocation and Remand prison.

c) Migori

-Meeting the Senior Principal Magistrate, the OCPD and the officer-in-charge of

investigations, the prosecutor, the District Probation and Aftercare Services officer, the

District Children Officer, two (2) officers-in-charge Migori GK men and women Prison and

the paralegal officer in charge of the region.

The AJC evaluation target was three court stations which are Meru, Makadara and Migori.

The AJC’ were established to improve cooperation; coordination and collaboration enhance

access and quality of justice in the criminal justice system.

Limitations during the study

The major limitation that the evaluator encountered during this exercise was the difficulty in

interviewing some of the stakeholders like the police and further time allocated for the

interviews was not sufficient. Most of the actors were at working which become difficult to

find time to interview them. The evaluator also fell ill immediately after the interviews.

3. EVALUATION FINDINGS

3.1.Programme Goal

To enhance dispensation of justice for poor litigants and strengthen the capacity, effectiveness

and coordination of stakeholders in the administration of justice.

3.2.Overall Assessment of the Implementation

In enhancing access to justice LRF had set out broad objectives. The evaluator spent time

analysing the extent to which planned activities were achieved and results realised from the

implementation.

3.3.Programme Implementation process and impact

3.3.1. Factors facilitating or hampering programme implementation

To ascertain factors that contributed to or hampered the success of the implementation of this

particular programme the evaluator assessed the following key areas: relevance, timelines,

appropriateness, effectiveness and impact of the programme interventions.

In enhancing dispensation of justice for poor litigants and strengthening the capacity,

effectiveness and coordination of stakeholders in the administration of justice; the

programme is relevant as it addresses crucial issues like identifying key challenges

facing access to justice in Kenya as being inter alia limited access to justice, delays in

administration of justice. This resulted in the formation of Access to Justice

Committees at the court stations specifically in Meru, Makadara and Migori that

brought together actors in the justice system who openly outline the challenges facing

them and explore solutions at the local levels (best practices) that can be adopted at a

higher level (bottom-up approach). The committees have had meetings where peer

review which is not a formal mechanism but one that offers guidance and camaraderie

without the need for such to be put down to policy this has been achieved as evidenced

in the interviews done and reports reviewed. When all actors concerned know what is

required of them, where one falls short the others ‘’peer review’’ him or her.

The programme appropriately through the AJC’S both at local levels (at the court

station where the actors at the three court stations have had meetings facilitated by

LRF) to the provincial level where the evaluation notes that it is only Makadara and

Migori that were able to hold one provincial stakeholders meeting. None has been

done at the national level.

The evaluation notes that the AJC/CUC with assistance from LRF has been able to

identify capacity gaps that led to the training at different times in 2010 of prison

wardens, administration police and police officers in Migori and Meru. The officers

underwent a human rights training to improve their competence so that they can

perform their functions to adequate levels. Most of the actors in the two court stations

commended the foundation for the good work as the impact is felt. The same has not

been done at Makadara.

The quality of Monitoring & Evaluation including narrative and financial reporting,

and programme administration. LRF has a monitoring process in place. The

monitoring and evaluation system consists of;

-Appropriate performance indicators,

-Data collection and reporting system and

-Evaluation and review mechanisms

Further, the evaluation found out that the Administration of Justice programme has a

monitoring methodologies and evaluation mechanism which is not well documented.

The goals and objectives set in the strategic plan and the concept paper on Access to

Justice Committees have no clear performance indicators. The monitoring tool availed

was for Makadara and Migori done only once and none for Meru AJC. The financial

report for the programme with respect to the three court stations were also not availed

for evaluation.

The AJC/CUC meetings facilitated by LRF ought to take place on quarterly basis but

the evaluation notes that in Meru court station there have been only three (3) meetings

in the past year, Makadara three (3) since 2008 and Migori three (3) since 2009. The

threshold of the quarterly meeting has not satisfied because of financial constraints.

Further there was no work plan to guide the programme in the monitoring progress

and implementation.

The meetings are appreciated by the actors, although most request to be involved in

the setting of agenda for the meetings. They also request that the meetings be allocated

enough time to allow for exhaustive discussions of the agenda. The concern raised was

that the agenda is mostly set by the actors from the judiciary and the meetings begin

late in the afternoon.

The information desk to assist members of the public that LRF ought to have set up

has not been fully realised. Most of the AJC’S have tried to form subcommittees /task

force that would report back to the committees, the only successful one has been

Migori, unlike in Makadara that has not been realised.

The AJC members highly recognise and appreciate the work of LRF this is an

indication of a good working relationship between the two. The stakeholders met

during the evaluation perceives LRF as an important organization that addresses

concerns relating to access to justice. The work done by the paralegals is also

appreciated.

Outcome of AJC SWOT done with the paralegal staff

Strengths

Recognition of AJC/CUC by the

actors in the criminal justice

system

Goodwill and ownership from the

stakeholders

Teamwork

Support from the LRF

A competent pool of professionals

Weaknesses

Transfers of stakeholders to other

jurisdictions

No consistency in holding of

meetings

Inadequate funding

No work plans to guide the

process

No proper records kept and

documented

Laxity from some members in

participating in the activities

Lack of support from the judiciary

Opportunities

Benchmarking and inviting active

members from other successful

AJC’S

Engage with the judicial service

commission directly to

institutionalise the AJC/CUC

Document the success stories

Participate in the on-going reforms

in the administration of justice

Develop strategic linkages,

partnerships with other

organizations and the public

Set up a secretariat to coordinate

the activities

Threats

Inadequate funding

Hijacking of the process by other

organizations

Adverse publicity and lack of

confidence from the public

The vetting of the judicial officers

3.4.Success, Opportunities, Challenges, Lessons Learnt and Best

Practices

Several successes, challenges faced, best practices established and opportunities to be exploited in the

implementation of the programme from the three court stations. They include:

3.4.1. Meru

I. Successes.

(1) Introduction of the court dialogue cards and box used for getting feedback from the general

public unfortunately most people do not know how to fill them, some take them home and are

unable to return them back to enable the court to get feedback.

(2) Successful construction of a sitting bay for the public at the court premises this has assisted

the public to have a place to wait and get protection from harsh climatic conditions when

within the court premises.

(3) De-congestion of the Meru GK prison done in December 2010 where eighty three (83)

prisoners were released to community service orders and on Probation Service. De-congestion

done by the new lady justice lesiit whose efforts to decongest and promote community service

programme was aggressive. In 2010 alone, 205 cases were referred and 119 cases were

recommended for placement on probation. Out of the above, there was 85% completion.

Most were able to observe the orders due to the strict supervision accorded to the

probationers. Only 2% absconded.

CSO- a total of 736 offenders was placed on various government institutions to perform CSO

work. The figure projects a CSO caseload increased by 25.5% from the past year. This means

then the courts are utilizing the use of non-custodial sentences. Over 90% of placed offenders

were on short term placement with all the six courts preferring one to five days CSO

commitment to petty offender’s especially drunk and disorderly category.

(4) Currently more days are allocated for civil days. Three (3) days for civil matters and two (2)

days for criminal matters. Diary then was at March 2011.

(5) On pre-bail reports, the practice now is that the high Court is requesting for more pre-bail

reports as it applies Article 49 of the new constitution.

(6) Through the dialogue established amongst the stakeholders there is an improvement in the

delivery of services to the public as there are fewer missing files, witnesses are bonded to

attend court on time and the inmates get to court on time.

(7) Public awareness has been increased on CSO through a successful chief’s workshop organized

by LRF in June 2010

(8) Capacity building of prisons department and police officers on Human rights done in

September 2010 by LRF. 9) Through co-operation and co-ordination of the actors children

offenders are being separated from adults as soon as it’s established that they are minors e.g.

Kiki case who was a minor charged as an adult. Through the intervention of the paralegal the

sentence was reviewed.

(9) Strong partnership established with other organization in the region. LRF funded the bar

bench workshop together with ripples international out of which a working committee was

formed this was after advocates had boycotted court protesting against lady justice Mugo who

was later transferred by the CJ. Meeting was attended by judges’ magistrates and advocates

working in Meru.

II. Challenges

(1) Difficulty in procuring representation from all the actors in the meetings and sometimes

representatives sent who are junior officers who are unable to make any decisions or

answer/reply to certain matters e.g. the officers in charge Meru prison had not attended any of

the meetings since inception and have only sent representatives and issues raised in all the

meeting regarding transportation of inmates to court had been discussed and no way forward

found because of non-attendance or sending representatives to the meetings.

(2) The meetings are few and far and some members feel that the venue is very monotonous.

(3) The yet to be conducted vetting of judicial officers is causing uncertainty amongst the officers

which may directly impact on their job performance.

(4) Implementation of the resolutions made very difficult because it’s dependent on follow up to

the headquarters an example would be the transportation of male and female inmates from

prison to court. Inmates both male and female are still being put together in police cells at the

court premise this leads to a high rate spread of HIV/AIDS.

(5) Transfer of officers who are committee members to other areas makes continuity difficult in

instances where there is no file that contains the reports and minutes of the AJC/CUC.

(6) There is no work plan which would guide the committee the whole year.

(7) The prison is still congested as most of the inmates are capital offenders whose cases have not

been heard since the boycott by the advocates last year.

(8) The area covered by the paralegal is too large.

III. Opportunities

(1) Sensitize the community on the need to understand non-custodial sentencing and acceptance

of offenders who have completed their sentences into the society.

(2) Set up a central working committee/ secretariat that would meet to review and do follow-ups

on the resolutions made during meetings.

(3) Expand the membership of the CUC/AJC to include religious leaders and the ministry of

health representative.

(4) For LRF/ CUC to engage the police in actualization of the reforms, most or almost all

complains are levelled against the police e.g. missing files, poor investigations , faulty charge

sheets etc.

(5) Build capacity of the members on their roles and refresher courses on the objectives of the

committees for each actor to gain deeper understanding on how each department works to

foster partnerships and enhance linkages and networking. Create team spirit amongst the

members and to improve the members working relations and sharing responsibility

collectively.

(6) LRF to deploy more paralegals to the region to march the large population and society’s

needs.

(7) LRF to establish the information desk at the law courts to assist members of the public. To

also partner with other local organizations to assist in facilitating the AJC/CUC.

(8) Utilize ADR and Community Justice Systems to bring reconciliation this can be done by the

probation department when preparing pre-bail reports as they come in contact with both

parties except for sexual offences. The police too can utilize the same as they too come in

contact with both parties during investigations.

(9) The CUC/AJC to come up with proposals for improving the CSO activities to incorporate

income generating activities like tree planting, fish farming etc. Advocate for better handling

of female prisoners –transport to and from court, separation of women and men at the court

cells, more orderlies to guard the prisoners’ and expand the prison to accommodate child

offender.

Best practice

1) The Access to Justice Committee in Meru has been able to incorporate a local organization

Ripples International into the committee. This organization focuses on the best interest of the

child; one of the key areas is access to justice to children who are victims. As a result, there is

established a good working relationship that has been created between the children’s

department, Ripples International, the judiciary and the police. Children victims now get

counselling and representation and cases are quickly dispensed with. Magistrates in November

2010 visited the rescue Centre and interacted with the children, when a child testifies in court

they accused is made to face away from the child testifying, this builds the confidence of the

child. The police department has assigned specific officers to handle children matters this has

ensured that investigations are handled expeditiously. Children cases for the year 2006/2007

and 2008 have all been concluded.

2) The judiciary now makes orders to remand children offenders in police stations instead of

prison as there is no remand prison for child offenders in Meru except the adult prison.

3) The paralegals have assisted the prisoners who are now knowledgeable on their rights and

know how to engage the criminal justice system. This is done using moot courts to make the

inmates understand the trial process better. The report from the judiciary is that prisoners are

able to bring their issues to the attention of the court to be addressed.

4) The practice with regards to traffic offences is that the police are using notice to attend court

instead of arresting motorists on minor offences under section 117 of the Traffic Act.

3.4.2. Makadara

a) Successes

1) Stakeholders in the criminal justice system have been able to come together and highlight

challenges facing them as different actors.

2) Better understanding of the roles of the other actors in the criminal justice system and how to

work together. Before the CUC was constituted there were many case adjournments because

of lack of or delay in availing witness statements, witnesses not bonded on time and missing

files. This was discussed in the meetings and now there is an improvement as witness

statements are availed and are bonded on time hence few adjournments for the above reason.

3) Rapport has been created amongst the actors as there is open communication amongst the

members like if the prisoners are running late to court the same is communicated to the courts.

There are now fewer summonses to court of officers in charge for failing to produce a

prisoner.

4) The judiciary has now begun to appreciate the work of paralegals as the magistrates’ direct

prisoners on certain issues to inquire or seek assistance from paralegals. This has resulted to

more prisoners who cannot afford advocates to understand the laws, procedures and to engage

the courts actively. Prisoners now understand the roles of paralegals and are able to get

assistance from them. The Kenya Prisons service has appreciated and acknowledged the work

of the paralegals three prison wardens have been trained as paralegals to work together with

the LRF paralegals.

5) The CUC/AJC has created an informal forum for the stakeholders to establish contacts

amongst themselves with no suspicion created or compromising each other’s work. This has

made work easier as the actors can freely communicate with one another.

Examples: the prisons department has seconded specific officers to assist the probation department

whenever they come to visit the prisons to interview prisoners before submitting the pre-bail

reports to the courts. This has enhanced efficiency in the delivery of services to the prisoners.

Further the court registries have been streamlined such that there are specific clerks who deal with

specific years its therefore easier to track down missing files as its now known which registry

officer deals with cases from what year.

Mentions after fourteen days are done by magistrates in prison, bond terms are adjusted after

presentation of cases thereby leading to decongestion of Kamiti maximum prison.

Courts are utilizing the provision of article 49 of the new constitution by giving affordable bail

and bond terms to petty and capital offenders.

b) Challenges

1) Non- attendance of most key stakeholders i.e. police

2) Very few and far between meetings organized by LRF because of financial constraints.

3) The Makadara CUC/AJC very big and thus the need to form subcommittees which have not

been realized.

4) There is no work plan to outline the activities to be done by the actors during the year.

5) Most of the actors do not like the venue of the meetings.

6) There is no proper keeping of records of the CUC/AJC meeting; further the minutes of the

previous meetings are circulated very late or even not at all. Most stakeholders do not have

specific files for the purposes of keeping the CUC/AJC records. Even if a representative is

sent to attend on behalf of the head of department without proper records the representative

cannot comment on issues raised in the meeting because there were no records to peruse

through before the meetings. Most stakeholders send representatives who are junior officers

who cannot make any decisions or respond to certain matters in the meeting regarding the

institution they represent unless they consult their superiors. This leads to matters taking too

long to be resolved. There is no consistency in the attendance of some stakeholders as

different stakeholders send representatives to represent the institution.

7) No follow ups done on the resolutions made in the meetings, no committee set up that is

tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that resolutions are

8) There is no openness in the meetings as most actors feel that the process has been hijacked by

the judiciary who set the agendas, actors shy away and do not contribute in the deliberations.

9) The paralegals are few and cannot meet the demand of the prisoners.

10) Transfers of stakeholder’s results in slowing down the momentum of the CUC like the transfer

of the chief magistrate Mrs Ominde continuity or activeness of the CUC/AJC is dependent on

the goodwill of the judiciary officers at Makadara.

c) Opportunities

1) Establishment of a secretariat to coordinate the CUC/AJC activities.

2) Train the actors on the roles and on the emerging issues.

3) To visit the prisons and organize an open day for the members of the public to interact

with the committee.

4) Actualize the subdivision of the committees within the Makadara CUC/AJC since the

jurisdiction the court is too large.

5) Partner with other organizations to assist in the funding of the CUC/AJC meetings.

3.4.3. Migori

a) Successes

1) All the actors in the criminal justice system have been brought together, before every

department was working independent of the other. As a result of the coming together all the

actors have been able to share the different challenges facing them as the stakeholders in the

criminal justice system. The committee meetings have provided an informal forum for

communication and team spirit amongst the members. Good working relationship within the

departments. Open door policy established.

2) Gaps are identified from the Interaction amongst the actors. Questions raised in the

committee meetings are directed to a specific stakeholder. There are no complaint letters to

the judiciary from the public because people are beginning to understand how the criminal

justice system works. LRF trained officers from the administration police, prison wardens and

general police department in November 2010.

3) The CUC/AJC provides a forum for the committee members to know the roles and mandate of

each other. This has resulted in magistrates visiting the prisons department on the 31 st may

2010. This had not happened before and it did only after being highlighted in the CUC

meeting.

4) The prison is now decongested because of the courts utilization of non-custodial sentences.

The prison has a capacity of 400 prisoners and as at 17th Feb 2011 there were 392 prisoners.

Out of the total number 252 are serving their sentences whereas 140 are remandees. Most of

the remandees are still in remand because they cannot be able to afford the bail/bond terms

given and not because of being denied bail/bond. The deployment of one other magistrate

recently has reduced backlog of cases and improved case management. Cases are determined

within the shortest time. Period for hearing cases do not go beyond one month. Cause lists are

available daily.

5) There is now a separate place that is used to remand child offenders which used to be a

segregation block. Child offenders therefore are not put together with adults in prison cells. In

the event that a child offender has been kept with the adult prisoners then that is rectified

immediately.

6) Formation of task force/subcommittee within the CUC/AJC to do follow up on specific issues

e.g. a subcommittee was formed to do visit the children’s officer and the medical

superintendent who had not been attending meetings and to report back to the committee

b) Challenges

1) It has not been easy to bring all the stakeholders together; most do not attend the meetings even

when they have been invited like the MOH. Some committee members do not attend meetings or

sending junior officer to represent them and some of the issues raised and resolutions made can

only be addressed by the head of department. The aforesaid is seen from advocates and the

OCPD, the children department officer and District Ministry of health representatives.

2) Underutilization of non-custodial sentencing as there are only three (3) people as at January 2011

being supervised for community service order and only three (3) pre-bail reports who have been

charged for robbery with violence requested from the court as this is still a new concept (from the

District probation and after care services).

3) Communities un-appreciation and abuse of the criminal justice system as the cases on sexual

offence still rampant in the area , cases in court do not reach conclusion as the victims disappear

example given is the Migori boys case where the victims disappeared or collude with the family

of the offender for an out of court settlement. The case is adjourned several times until it is

dismissed.

4) Follow –up on resolutions very challenging like informing the children’s department whenever

there are children matters in court or at the police station. This is not being done.

5) There have been very few meetings and far apart because of lack of funds to facilitate the

meetings. Meetings begin late because of late comers.

6) Understaffed departments hinder the quality of justice –in the children department there is one

officer serving two districts and the police ratio 1:3000 in Rongo. Procuring the attendance to

CUC/AJC meetings of such an officer is difficult.

7) Filing of the CUC/AJC reports and minutes not well documented. Minutes of previous meeting

not circulated in time for committee members to prepare on time for meetings.

8) Advocates and litigants are a stumbling block to dispensation to justice because they adjourn cases

many times which results to backlog of cases.

c) Opportunities

1) To train the police and prosecutors on the new laws and specific areas of law e.g. sexual

offence law. The court clerks too as they are judicial officers who seem to have been left out.

2) Network with other partners within the locality in resource mobilization to assist in putting up

of a facility for child offenders and children in need of care and protection. The minutes from

the CUC/AJC can be used to source for funds to setup a children’s facility. Like mastermind

Tobacco Company and the business community within Migori town.

3) Establish a gender desk at the police stations and a public relations desk at the court.

4) Completion of the new court premise would enhance access to justice.

5) Organize an open day where all the actors within the justice system interact with the public.

6) Incorporate other stakeholders from the provincial Administration and, religious organizations

to be able to get feedback from the public.

7) The court to utilize the probation and aftercare services department in preparation of pre-bail

reports and to also sensitize the public on the law and procedures and CSO.

d) Best practice

1) The Migori CUC/AJC agreed that for them to be able to deal with the issue of unnecessary

adjournments because of missing files, the police not ready to proceed , witnesses not yet

bonded, the resolution was that the judiciary would prepare cause -lists a week in advance so

that all the actors can prepare on time.

2) The probation and aftercare department in fulfilling its mandate with regards to probation and

CSO have been able to come up with sustainable activities for probationers that raise funds

which is a community service tree nursery. The tree nurseries are prepared by the

probationers and are sold. After they finish the community service the department assists them

with seedlings to set up their own tree nurseries.

3) The issue of P3 forms and Post-mortem after being raised and discussed in the committee. The

way forward was that a task force was formed from the committee to visit the district medical

officer and medical superintendent to request their attendance in the next committee meeting

to address issues of concern in this department like the filing of P3 Forms and Post-mortem

reports. The task force met with the District Health officer and agreed that the practice to be

adopted would be that two days are specifically assigned and specific doctors for filling of P3

Form and performing the post-mortem.

4) In an effort to decongest the prisons the judiciary in the application of bail/bond terms has put

in place a system that ensures that the offenders do not jump bail. The court insists on the

surety to be a civil servant, who would bring their pay-slip and letter of employment and

identification card. The court has also received tremendous cooperation and support from the

police and prosecutor who raises objections if it is proper to do so. As a result of the above

there have been three (3) or four (4) offenders who have jumped bail (from the senior

principal magistrate).

e) Lessons learnt

1) Cooperation amongst the actors in the criminal justice system is very vital in the dispensation

of justice. All the stakeholders need to own the programme to ensure its success.

2) Success of the AJC/CUC depends on each member of the committee discharging specific

duties assigned to them effectively.

3) Coordination and communication amongst the actors in the criminal justice system helps in

understanding and appreciation of other actors’ problems.

4) Most decisions are not made in formal settings it’s good to move from comfort zones to make

decisions. Move from formal setting to an informal one like the CUC/AJC.

5) Collaboration of all actors in the criminal justice system is very vital in the dispensation or

access to justice to the poor vulnerable and marginalized people. Collaboration also fosters

understanding of how other actors work.

6) Receiving feedback from the beneficiaries of the justice system is very important because

there is an opportunity to improve delivery of services.

7) The importance of having interactive CUC/AJC sessions because there is learning and

exchange of ideas amongst the committee members and further local solutions are realized.

8) The success or failure of the CUC/AJC is dependent on the goodwill and commitment of the

committee members.

9) Creating partnerships and networking is very important once it is realized that all actors are

working towards achieving the same goals or objectives.

3.5. Trends

4. RECOMMENDATIONS/STRATEGIES

The evaluator recommends that in the next phase, the AJC/CUC breaks the whole year plan into quarterly plans. Prepare work plans which will act as the roadmap for the committees.

LRF improves on their current monitoring process to a clear framework which is vital for assessing outcomes and impact.

The AJC/CUC quarterly meetings are undertaken, allocated enough time all the actors be involved in setting the agenda of the meetings. Minutes of these meetings to be sent to the participants on time.

LRF should fast-track setting up of the information desk in all the three court stations so that the public can benefit.

The AJC/CUC to constitute a resource mobilization committee to explore means and ways of raising funds from other sources to facilitate the meetings. Utilise the minutes of the meetings to source for funds and engage the judicial service commission to institutionalize the CUC.

The AJC/CUC to actualise the formation of a taskforce and or subdivision of the committees for easier management of the committees.

Train stakeholders on case management to improve case flow management and thus enhance quality of justice.

[5.] CONCLUSIONS

The Access to Justice Committee also known as Court Users committee has an opportunity of

addressing some of the challenges highlighted in this evaluation to become more effective in

implementing the programme. All stakeholders commit themselves to support the

implementation of the recommendations proposed in the evaluation report.

Table 2: Overall Assessment of the Program

Planned activities Performance

indicator

achievement variance

Monitoring and

analysis of court

Designate case

managers and

The foundation has

deployed trained

None

sessions and case

management trends

on administration of

justice process.

overseers to

facilitate them

paralegals in all the

three court stations

to monitor court

sessions and case

management trends

Inadequate staffing

level as one

paralegal is

responsible for

many other

activities.

Development of

situational briefs on

courts and prisons

for sharing with

AJCs and the public.

Situational briefs Paralegals who are

point persons at the

court stations submit

reports and feedback

to the AJC’S and the

public

None

Establish judicial

paralegal

information desks

Paralegal

information desk.

There is a paralegal

information desk in

all the three court

stations

None

Development of

quarterly

confidential briefs

for key justice actors

–police, prisons and

the judiciary.

Quarterly

confidential briefs

developed.

Capacity

development on

advocacy lobbying

administration of

justice and change

management

No of trainings done

Public interest

litigation

No of litigations

done

Planned activities Indicators

Performance

achievement Variance

Establish and

strengthening of AJC

No of AJC’s

established and

revived

Meru, Migori,

Makadara

AJC/CUC

None

Capacity training of

stakeholders in delivery

of justice, prosecution,

investigation arrest, case

management and new

laws.

No of trainings

done, stake

holders trained on

the areas

None

Develop an open door

policy memorandum of

engagement (MOE)

Develop and or support

shadow report and

special rapporteur

regional and or

international system

Publish information and

judicial statements

policies and Kenya

Gazette to the public.

Establishment and

promoting recognition

scheme and rewards

exemplary

performance/complianc

e standards justice

actors and pro-bono

lawyers’ rooster.

Advocate for courts of

petty session child

diversion, Aftercare and

pre-bail policies and use

of ADR mechanism or

multi-donor courts,

panel reforms and non-

custodian sentencing

Develop a public

interest litigations

strategy.

Annual Pro-bono

lawyers and justice

actors retreat

No documentation

to show this.