project document template - united nations development · pdf file ·...

THE JUDICIARY

The Judiciary Transformation Support Project

2013 – 2016

Project Document

3

Acronyms ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms AIE Authority to incur Expenditures AWP Annual Workplan CEDAW Convention on Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women CJ Chief Justice COA Court of Appeal CP Country Programme CPAP Country Programme Action Plan CRJ Chief Registrar of the Judiciary CUC Court Users Committees DCJ Deputy Chief Justice ESC Economic, Social and Cultural Rights GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Internationale Zusammenarbeit GJLOS Governance Justice Law and Order Sector GOK Government Of Kenya HRM Human Resource Management ICT Information and Communication Technology IDLO International Development Law Organization IEC Information, Education and Communication IFMIS Integrated Financial Management Information System JSC Judical Service Commission JT-DPF Judiciary Transformation Development Partners Forum JTF Judiciary Transformation Framework JTF-PMT Judiciary Transformation Framework Project Management Team JTF-SC Judiciary Transformation Framework Steering Committee JTF-TCF Judiciary Transformation Framework Technical Coordination Forum JTI Judiciary Training Institute KMJA Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association KNDR Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation KRA Key Results Areas MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework NCAJ National Council on Administration of Justice NCLR National Council for Law Reporting NCRL National Council for Law Reporting NIM National Implementation Modality OCJ Office of the Chief Justice ODCJ Office of the Deputy Chief Justice OHCHR United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights PAC Project Approval Committee PLWD People Living with Disabilities PPBR Programming Planning Budgeting Results RCOA Registrar Court of Appeal RFID Radio Frequency Identification RFP Request for Proposals RHC Registrar High Court RMC Registrar Magistrates Courts RSC Registrar Magistrates Courts SBAA Standard Basic Assistance Agreement SID Society for International Development SIP Strategic Investment Program SMS Short Messaging Service TA Technical Assistance TDRM Traditional Dispute Resolution Mechanisms TOR Terms of Reference UBRAF Unified Budget and Accountability Framework UDHR Universal Declaration of Human Rights UNAIDS Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework UNDP United Nations Development Program UNV United Nations Volunteer

4

Table of Contents Cover page ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...1 Executive summary and signature page …………………………………………………………………………………………………………....2 Acronyms …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..3 Table of content ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..4 A. Narrative ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5

Overall context ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……...5 Historical context ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….5 Reform context …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

A new Constitutional context for the Judiciary …………………………………………………………………………………..6 The Judiciary Transformation Framework ………………………………………………………………………………………….6

Problem analysis ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..8 Overview …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...8

Key problem issue 1: ethics and integrity …………………………………………………………………………………………..8 Key problem issue 2: leadership, culture, public confidence and access to justice ………………………….….9 Key problem issue 3: Harness ICT ..........................……………………………………………………………………………10

The Judiciary: policy and institutional responses ……………………………………………………………………………………..11 Early institutional responses …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

Current policy and institutional responses: the judiciary transformation framework ……………………….12 B. Justification for the project ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14

Overview ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….14 Project components …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 Outcome area 1: People-focused delivery of justice …………………………………………………………………………15

Component 1.1: Access to and expeditious delivery of justice ………………………………………………..15 Component 1.2: People-centered and public engagement ……………………………………………………..16 Component 1.3: Stakeholder engagement ……………………………………………………………………………..17

Outcome area 2: Strengthened capacity within the Judiciary to deliver on its mandate …………………..18 Component 2.1: leadership and management ………………………………………………………………………..18 Component 2.2: Growth of jurisprudence and judicial practice ………………………………………………19 Component 2.3: harnessing technology as an enabler for justice ……………………………………….…..20

C. UNDP’s Niche and Previous interventions …………………………………………………………………………………………………….21 D. Stakeholder Analysis and roles …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….22 E. Annual Work Plan …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………23 F. Management Arrangements ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..35

Partners to the project …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….35 Outlining roles, responsibilities and coordination mechanisms ………………………………………………………………..36 Project implementation structure …………………………………………………………………………………………………………...39 Financial management arrangements ………………………………………………………………………………………………39 Project Procurement ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..40

Resource leveraging and strategic partnerships ……………………………………………………………………………….40 G. Framework for Monitoring, Evaluation and Audit ………………………………………………………………………………………..41 H. Legal Context ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….43 I. Management of risks ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…44

5

A. NARRATIVE

1. Overall Context 1.1 Historical Context As one of the three arms of the Government of Kenya, the Judiciary is responsible for the fair and efficient administration of justice for all in Kenya. In addition it is expected to play an important role in safeguarding individual rights and freedoms, in acting as a check on the powers (and excesses) of the other arms of Government and in promoting socio-economic progress through relevant and innovative jurisprudence. Initially established as a law and order institution within the colonial administration, the Judiciary has operated as an independent arm of Government for less than 20 years, having only been delinked from the civil service in 1996. Despite this role clarification, numerous lessons and experience from the past two decades highlighted: an increasing lack of public trust, respect and confidence in the Judiciary as an institution, inefficient Justice administration, limited Access to justice in both physical and functional terms, a widely perceived lack of judicial independence and evidence of limited progress in innovatively developing the law, all of which contributed to a sullied Judiciary’s reputation. This was best demonstrated in the aftermath of the controversial 2007 Presidential election in Kenya, where, in part, reluctance to refer the ensuing electoral dispute to the Judiciary was an important precursor to the post-election violence that Kenya subsequently experienced. 1.2 Reform Context Over the past two decades, various Task Forces have been established to chart a reform path for the Judiciary and restore waning public confidence in the courts. Each time, clear and practical recommendations have been developed and presented for judicial reform. In large part, however, these have failed to succeed due to a combination of insufficient political leadership/will and weak reform implementation capacity. In the aftermath of the 2007/08 post-election violence, an internationally-mediated political settlement, titled the Kenya National Dialogue and Reconciliation Agreement (KNDR, or the National Accord) was signed by the key protagonists to the electoral dispute that was the precursor to this violence. A core element of this Accord was Agenda 4, which inter alia required comprehensive judicial reform. Following further recommendations in 2008 by two commissions established to probe the post-election violence (the Independent Electoral Review Commission (“Kriegler commission”) and Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (“Waki commission”), a Task Force on Judicial Reforms was established to consolidate previous reform recommendations, and address existing legal and institutional bottlenecks as part of a fresh reform path for the Judiciary in line with Agenda 4. This Task Force (known as the “Justice Ouko Task Force”) successfully completed its work in 2010.

6

1.3 A New Constitutional Context for the Judiciary Even as the Ouko Task Force performed its Judiciary reform mandate, wider efforts were underway – also under Agenda 4 – to deliver a new constitution for Kenya. These efforts culminated in a public referendum in August 2010 in which a super-majority of Kenyans voted for a new constitution. Chapter 10 of the new constitution radically transforms the policy, legal and institutional context of the Judiciary. Under Section 159 of the constitution, it elucidates that judicial authority is derived from the people. Further, the constitution emphasizes the values of integrity, efficiency, transparency, accountability and effectiveness in public service. It also establishes a Supreme Court and sets out new responsibilities for an expanded Judicial Service Commission. In practical terms, the new dispensation has thus far been characterised by the transparent appointment of a new Chief Justice and Deputy Chief Justice, a new Supreme Court, and a refreshed Court of Appeal and High Court through an open and competitive recruitment process. A further process of vetting sitting judges and magistrates for suitability is highly advanced. In addition, the revamped Judicial Service Commission now plays a key role in the discipline of judges, while the High Court has been re-organized into specialized divisions. Further, judicial mechanisms that were previously housed in other parts of Government, such as the Industrial Court, have now been fully mainstreamed in the Judiciary. Similarly, the Constitution provides for a new system of courts and vide Article 169 (1)(2) local tribunals have been ranked as subordinate courts and are thus now under the auspices of the Judiciary. The tribunals may be established under various laws made by parliament to deal with specific matters. 1.4 The Judiciary Transformation Framework In fulfillment of its constitutional mandate as provided under article 159 and responding to the high public expectations and demands for improved performance, the Judiciary has developed an Integrated Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF). The JTF - which initially covers the period 2012 to 2016 - adopts a holistic approach to the Judiciary’s development built on sector-wide collaboration, strategic and technical partnerships and the use of benchmarks based on emerging and contemporary national, regional and global smart practice. It is centred around ten Key Result Areas (KRAs), each of which focuses on specific aspects of the Transformation Programme and comprises broad initiatives that are expected to achieve measurable and visible results. Supporting the JTF is the Judiciary’s Integrated Strategic Plan 2012-2017, which operationalises the KRAs by prioritising and sequencing the broad initiatives into a medium-term programme of tangible and discrete activities, costs and budgets. Finally, the JTF is the mechanism that the Judiciary will use to engage with its stakeholders, be they central government agencies such as the Treasury, linked

7

institutions in the chain of justice such as the Police, Public Prosecutions and Prisons departments, non-state actors and local and international development partners.

8

2. Problem Analysis

2.1 Overview For many years, the Judiciary was perceived as one of the most corrupt institutions in Kenya and therefore experienced a decline of public trust and confidence in the way in which it dispensed justice to people specifically, and how it has conducted its affairs generally. This is attested to by the fact that as the Committee of Experts collected views on the Judiciary, Kenyans expressed their outrage with the institution when they sought the vacation of all judges from office upon the coming into effect of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. The ire of the public was directed at judicial officers who did not understand the conditions within which these officers worked, captured aptly by the Chief Justice on his 120th day in office. He stated:

We found an institution so frail in its structures; so thin on resources; so low on its confidence; so deficient in integrity; so weak in its public support that to have expected it to deliver justice was to be wildly optimistic. We found a Judiciary that was designed to fail. The institutional structure was such that the Office of the Chief Justice operated as a judicial monarch supported by the Registrar of the High Court. Power and authority were highly centralised. Accountability mechanisms were weak and reporting requirements absent. When we put people on a pedestal it is based on negative power and authority. That is the old order.

As noted earlier, the Constitution of Kenya 2010 marked a major shift in the longstanding process of restoration of credibility towards the Judiciary. Before, the Judiciary was constitutionally controlled by the Executive through retrogressive rules, its independence was restricted, with the Judiciary treated as a department of the executive without institutional autonomy and its purpose was principally geared towards service to the government of the day. The judiciary was rendered subordinate to the executive and legislature and subject to potential political influence and patronage. Institutionally, the Chief Justice, under the previous constitution exercised immense powers, undermining the decisional independence of the judicial officers, who were treated as civil servants. 2.2 Key Problem Issue 1: Ethics and Integrity On matters of integrity and ethical behaviour, the judiciary was not performing any better. Internationally, the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct contain the set of values that should determine judicial behaviour. These include not asking, receiving or accepting any form of gifts in relation to doing any favours in connection to performance of judicial duties. Conduct of judicial office holders did not quite adhere to these international ethical guidelines. High levels of corruption were known to persist within the Kenyan Judiciary. Indeed, according to the East African Bribery Index 2009 prepared by Transparency International Kenya, overall the judiciary was the third most bribery-prone public institution in Kenya. On likelihood of encountering bribery, the judiciary topped the index, with the proportion of respondents who interacted with the judiciary and

9

from whom a bribe was solicited or expected as a condition of service delivery standing at 86.1 per cent. According to this report, the percentage of respondents who actually paid a bribe in their interaction with the Judiciary was 57.8 per cent. In addition 54.9 per cent of respondents only secured a judicial service upon payment of a bribe. Access to justice and delivery of Justice were both suffering. 2.2 Key Problem Issue 2: Leadership, Culture, Public Confidence and Access to Justice The dire situation in the Judiciary has for long been in the public limelight. A number of committees and/or commissions had been established to examine the state of the judiciary and to make proposals for remediative actions. Most of the reports by these committees/commissions were developed with no further action towards their implementation. Subsequently, the state of the Judiciary continued to be a major point of discourse in the country. Decades of one party rule accompanied by the overwhelming power of the president contributed to a public perception of weakness, ineffectiveness and political manipulation of the institution. Appointment, promotion and discipline of judicial officers had been the preserve of the Executive and have not always been on the basis of merit and integrity. Each of the constitution making processes the country has had over the last two decades recommended reform of the Judiciary. The citizenry were not accessing justice and if anything access to justice was slow and convoluted. Public confidence in the judiciary virtually collapsed. The Judiciary was riddled with: Partiality and a lack of independence; weak administrative structures that undermined the effective administration of courts; judicial corruption and unethical behaviour; inadequate financial and human resources that contributed to case backlog; inefficiency, and delays in court processes; manual and mechanical systems of operations that affected efficiency in service delivery; a lack of awareness of court procedures and operations, and the financial cost associated with accessing the court system all serving to perpetuate a widely held belief among ordinary Kenyans that formal justice was a preserve of the ‘rich and well connected’. A number of surveys and studies had been undertaken revolving around the public perception of weakness, ineffectiveness and political manipulation of the Judiciary. Following the contested presidential election in 2007, a Gallup Poll was conducted between June and July 2008 across the country, to obtain opinions on past grievances and satisfaction with the current leadership and the way forward. Conducted across all provinces in Kenya, the poll’s results suggested that confidence in the judicial system had declined from 55 per cent in 2007 to only 36per cent in 2008. The similar poll was repeated in April 2009, and the results showed that just 27 per cent of Kenyans expressed confidence in the judicial system. The trend was alarming. The dwindling level of faith among Kenyans in their judicial system has broader roots than the post-election crisis situation cited above alone. The proportion of the population using the formal court system in Kenya has always been low. To this end, according to a survey conducted by the Governance, Justice, Law and Order Sector (GJLOS) Reform Programme in 2006, even prior to the controversy surrounding the 2007 presidential election results showed that the people of Kenya resolved only 26 per cent of all disputes through the formal court system.

10

More recently, a number of surveys and reports have been generated to appreciate progress on a myriad of issues across various sectors with regard to public service delivery. The GJLOS household baseline survey report of 2011 on the section of administration of justice revealed that within the state sector, the chief/assistant chief stands out as the predominant third party to finally handle disputes. Of the total disputes, 32 per cent were handled by chief/assistant chief, 19 per cent by the Police, 7 per cent by the courts and the balance by wide range of state and none state actors. Recently however things are beginning to change, the Judiciary’s independence has the more been assured and following the appointment of the New Chief Justice in accordance with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, progress is already being made in many areas. In 2012, the reforms of the Judiciary started taking root while public confidence on the Judiciary began rise at appreciable levels. Nonetheless more still needs to be done as according to the recently released report on the status of governance in Kenya, by the society for international development (SID), less than one half of the public have easy access to a court of law, 76 per cent of Kenyans find the costs of litigation prohibitive and only 30 per cent have access to legal representation. Even with more cases coming to the courts, the disposal of these cases has improved, in addition more funding has been availed for provision of legal representation in the past fiscal year, as demonstrated by the recent state of the judiciary and administration of justice report. Nonetheless, more remains to be accomplished.

2.2 Key Problem Issue 3: Infrastructure and Technology; Judicial culture and development of Jurisprudence;

The Judiciary is facing mounting pressures to reform how it operates in a bid to meet the expectations of the people of Kenya. Special recognition has been made on the fact that ICT has an enormous potential to improve the administration of justice. In the past though, speedier delivery of justice was hindered by amongst other aspects limited adoption and utilization of ICT both in court and administrative operations. Access to laws of Kenya, simple information, procedural forms, storage and retrieval of material was all manual. Expeditious and efficient delivery of justice needs to embrace application of technologies more so in this era of numerous technological advancements. ICT is recognized in the JTF and in this document as a cross cutting imperative across all the four pillars and a necessity in the larger reform process.

The current project recognizes the conscious efforts of the Judiciary to strengthen judicial education and learning as a necessity in the road to a transformed institution. The project will build upon these initiatives and the current approaches to transform the Judicial Training Institute as the interlocutor for intellectual exchanges in the Judiciary. The State of the Judiciary and the Administration of Justice report of 2011-2012 further highlighted the necessity to move forward with catalysing Judicial dialogue on Constitutional implementation, promotion of knowledge generation and transfer through partnerships, and policy development research and advisory initiatives as part of growing Jurisprudence in Kenya.

11

The Judiciary: Policy and Institutional Responses 3.1 Early institutional responses For many years, the Judiciary has been undergoing reforms albeit at a very slow pace. Legislation has been, and continues to be, enacted to further elaborate and actualise the constitutional provisions for a fully functional and independent Judiciary underpinned by the constitutions values and principles. Now even more the process of recruitment and retaining of judicial staff is based on a public vetting exercise in ensuring that it retains staff of highest integrity and leadership qualities. The leadership in the Judiciary has embraced change management approaches and embarked on building institutional delivery mechanisms to fulfil the Judiciary’s mandate. It is also significant that the mandate of the Judiciary has been expanded by strategically placing it at the helm of the National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ). In establishing ways to address the persistent issues of governance within the Judiciary which included dealing with ethics and corruption within its ranks, in February 2005 the Kenyan Judiciary adopted a Judicial Service Code of Conduct and Ethics under section 5(1) of the Public Officer Ethics Act 2003. The Judiciary also appoints an Ethics and Governance Sub-Committee on a bi-annual basis to address integrity issues and the Office of the Chief Justice is available to receive specific complaints of corruption with respect to individual judicial officers and staff. There are more institutional initiatives that have been put in place by the Judiciary over the recent past that include the introduction of specialized courts; the institutionalization of law reporting through the establishment of the National Council for Law Reporting and the recent establishment of the Judicial Training Institute. While these and other reforms have been carried out in the Judiciary it is the isolated manner of the reforms themselves that has contributed to the less than sufficient impact necessary to bring about change, needed to transform the Judiciary into a stronger and independent institution that has favour in the eyes of the Kenyans.

12

3.2 Current Policy and Institutional response: The Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) On 31st May 2012, the Chief Justice launched the Judiciary Transformation Framework as a consolidated, holistic and integrated response to the challenges facing the Judiciary, the Judiciary’s new constitutional requirements and public demands and expectations. The JTF is illustrated below.

JUDICIARY TRANSFORMATION AT A GLANCE

PEOPLE-FOCUSED DELIVERY OF

JUSTICE

Pillar 1

3 KEY RESULT AREASKRA 1 - Access to and

Expeditious Delivery of Justice

KRA 2 - People-Centredness & Public

EngagementKRA 3 - Stakeholder

Engagement

TRANSFORMATIVE LEADERSHIP,

ORGANISATIONAL CULTURE, AND

PROFESSIONAL AND MOTIVATED STAFF

Pillar 2

4 KEY RESULT AREASKRA 4 - Philosophy and

CultureKRA 5 - Leadership and

Management

KRA 6 - Organisational Structure

KRA 7 – Growth of Jurisprudence and Judicial

Practice

ADEQUATE FINANCIAL

RESOURCES AND PHYSICAL

INFRASTRUCTURE

Pillar 3

2 KEY RESULT AREASKRA 8 - Physical Infrastructure

KRA 9 - Resources and Value for Money

HARNESSING TECHNOLOGY

AS AN ENABLER FOR JUSTICE

Pillar 4

1 KEY RESULT AREAKRA 10 – Harnessing ICT/Technology as an

Enabler for Justice

Justice/ Service Delivery

Judicial Officers and Staff

Infrastructure and Resources

ICT/Technology

As illustrated, the JTF is centred around four pillars; a demand-side pillar based on justice and service delivery and three supply-side pillars covering staff, infrastructure and resources and information and communications technology (ICT). Ten interlinked key results are defined under these four pillars. Following its launch, the JTF has been used to guide the development of:

Five-year strategic plans for all court stations in Kenya

Five-year regional strategies that cover all of Kenya (these regional strategies being a precursor to county strategies that will ensure a high court in each county in Kenya)

Five year strategic plans for the Judiciary’s central directorates

An integrated five-year overall strategic plan for the Judiciary that amalgamates these components strategies, as well as those of orbit institutions such as JSC, JTI, NCAJ and NCLR, and aligns them with the policy objectives of the JTF, and

13

A five-year Strategic Investment Programme (SIP) for the Judiciary as a basis for sourcing medium-term financing support from GoK and development partners.

These core management instruments have been a necessary source of guidance and information towards the development of this comprehensive assistance to the Judiciary as part of contributing to the implementation for the comprehensive Judiciary Transformation framework.

14

B. JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROJECT

1.1 Overview With a comprehensive programming, planning, budgeting and results (PPBR) framework now in place, the Judiciary’s focus has now turned to resourcing and implementation of the transformation enterprise. The first-ever State of the Judiciary and Administration of Justice report, launched by the Chief Justice in an address to the nation on 19th October 2012, identifies several constraints and challenges that need to be addressed for the transformation to succeed including:

Inadequate access to justice

Inefficient justice delivery and a large case backlog

Weak public participation and engagement

Limited coordination across the justice chain

Low staff capacity, in both qualitative and quantitative terms

A surfeit of leadership and management skills across the institution

Non-existent organisational structures, role definitions and job descriptions

An episodic training and research agenda, and the lack of progressive jurisprudence

Dilapidated infrastructure that in many cases does not meet basic human rights principles or standards

Low levels of financial resources, especially those available at stations

Low ICT capacity, in terms of hardware, software and people The JTF and its supporting PPBR framework respond to each of these overarching problems through the pillars and respective key result areas. The underpinning impetus for this transformation is a combination of constitutional mandate and public demands and expectations. In this project document, the Judiciary seeks UNDP support in coordinating and implementing technical and financial inputs to the JTF enterprise through a multi-donor, basket fund arrangement. The period for this support is envisaged to run from May 2013 to June 2016 (with the first work plan spanning a 14 month period). In addressing these challenges and therefore progressively gearing towards fulfilling the objectives of the JTF the following project components have been elaborated as part of a comprehensive project:

15

1.2 Project components The project is designed to align fully with the four pillars under the JTF. In doing so, two specific outcome areas are derived for realization under the project. These are further supported with means of measure and means of verification to determine on the medium to longer term the progress of their realization. It is important to note however that a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework hinging on the JTF and the integrated judiciary strategic plan will be developed and form an important mechanism for tracking progress towards results at different levels. The two main project outcomes therefore are:

1. People-focused justice and service delivery 2. Strengthened capacity within the Judiciary to deliver on its mandate

These outcome areas and the corresponding components and project outputs are described further below. 1.2.1 Outcome area 1: People-focused delivery of justice This outcome area aligns with Pillar 1 of the JTF. It will also include elements of Pillar 4 (ICT) where this has a link with Pillar 1. The focus of this outcome area will primarily be on supporting the following key project components and outputs: 1.2.1.1 Component 1.1: Access to and expeditious delivery of justice The need to bring essential legal services within the means of the people through modernizing and simplifying the legal processes commonly used by millions of Kenyans seeking Justice is of concern and a high public duty for the Judiciary. This public obligation must both be recognized and performed as the Constitution guarantees equal protection of the law for everyone. This component concerns itself with contributing towards the swift disposition of cases that have been plaguing the administration of Justice in Kenya. It will work towards ensuring that various processes and systems are in place that ensure speedier trials of all cases, executed in order not to violate either the rights of the individuals or the public interest in general. Similarly the component will contribute to ensuring proximity and physical access to the court network, procedures that are simplified and enforce dispute resolution mechanisms in line with Constitutional provisions, all geared to expeditious administration of Justice. The component will achieve these aspirations through the following two outputs:

Output1: Processes and systems enabling access to court services by citizens including special interest groups developed and deployed. The Judiciary is an important player in governance as a prime custodian of the rule of law. In order to achieve this, the output above will support the Judiciary in amongst other things the establishment of a combination of strategies and systems that address the complex web of legal processes, social and economic costs of litigation, absence or inadequacy of legal aid, and technology limitations. Activities within this output will enable the Judiciary to institute specific measures such as development of policies and

16

legislation as well as linkages with training and capacity development to Judicial Officers and Staff on specific issues impeding access to justice by special interest groups (women, youth, marginalised communities, the disabled and children).

Output2: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms developed and embedded in law. This output is designed to inform the adoption and promotion of Alternative forms of Dispute Resolution Mechanisms in the form of either conciliation, mediation, or arbitration. This will be useful in case management and eventually leading to a Judiciary that is acclaimed locally, regionally and internationally for just, economical, and speedy disposal of cases. Additional

measures as part of unpacking ADRs are critical in enhancing and expediting access to justice for special interest groups (women, youth, marginalised communities, the disabled and children).

1.2.1.2 Component 1.2: People-centered and public engagement Under the concept of popular sovereignty, the three arms of Government (institutions of governance amongst which is the Judiciary), hold power as agents of the people. In this context, functioning democracies depends in large part on citizens’ support for democratic institutions. Without sufficient levels of public trust and confidence in the Judiciary and the absence of public participation and input, democracy cannot flourish. In this light, the component aims to propel Article 10 of the Constitution that establishes public participation as one of the National principals of governance. While the principle of participation in democracy and governance seems intuitively obvious in relation to the executive and legislative branches of Government, the democratic relationship between citizens and the judiciary is less clear, and work under this component would purpose to make improvements in this regard. Two separate but mutually reinforcing outputs are set out in realizing the aims of this component:

Output3: A comprehensive Judiciary information, education and communication strategy developed and implemented. The Judiciary Transformation Framework noted that the Judiciary has been insular and remote both in poise and process giving rise to grave misunderstandings of how it runs its affairs. As a result, the public confidence in the justice system has been greatly undermined. It has been clarified however that the Judiciary cannot perform their essential functions, if citizens lack trust and confidence that the courts offer a fair, efficient, and accessible forum for the resolution of disputes. If citizens lack confidence in their Judicial institutions, they are likely to look elsewhere for the preservation of law and order and resolve their disputes through informal and potentially more violent means, including vigilante justice. In entrenching the values of public participation and by extension continuously contribute to understanding and application of the rule of law, a publicly accessible process of scrutiny and engagement can be expected to restore some measure of Judicial credibility and public confidence in the judiciary. Through this output therefore, the project will contribute towards a comprehensive information,

17

education and communication strategy development and implementation that will not only demystify the Judiciary but in combination with application of ICT, provide an essential lynchpin to access and delivery of Justice. This notwithstanding, particular IEC messaging focussing on addressing barriers towards access to justice will be generated and disseminated specifically focussing on women and the disabled.

Output4: Public complaints mechanism in the Judiciary strengthened. A prerequisite to judicial legitimacy and efficacy and therefore to the sustainability of the rule of law is the enabling of public scrutiny of the Judiciary, conducted in a plainly public manner afforded by a ‘truth-telling’ process. In this regard the output above has been designed to contribute to the participation of the public in the administration of justice and by extension in sustaining the transformation reforms of the Judiciary. To these end, the project will support a series of activities that would expand and build capacity in the office of the ombudsperson to adequately receive and deal with public complaints against the Judiciary.

1.2.1.3 Component 1.3: Stakeholder engagement The work and decisions of the Judiciary affects a number of actors and stakeholders in the chain of administration of justice. In practice for instance, judicial determinations affect civil rights, individual freedoms, and property rights and thus influence, or in some cases dictates outright, the course of political, social, cultural, and economic development. In that way, the judiciary perforce shares in the burdens of governance. The component therefore aims to further the engagement and coordination between the many stakeholders of administration of justice. Two outputs will support the realization of this component, principally falling around the work of the National Council for Administration of Justice, through which these stakeholders are convened:

Output5: The National Council for the Administration of Justice is operationalized The output will include a set of activities that will contribute to the stakeholder collaboration in the statutory body, through strengthening the functions of the NCAJ and the secretariat as is situated within the Judiciary.

Output6: Court User Committees operating framework and guidelines implemented In support of the work of the Court User Committees stakeholder forum, this component will support the roll out of selected initiatives of the CUC across a number of Court stations in the country.

18

1.2.2 Outcome area 2: Strengthened capacity within the Judiciary to deliver on its mandate This outcome area aligns with Pillar 2 of the JTF. It includes elements of Pillar 4 (ICT) where linked to this Pillar. This outcome area will be supported through the following key project components and outputs: 1.2.2.1 Component 2.1: leadership and management It is recognizable that the Judiciary has transitioned through a number of challenges related to its leadership and management. With the consolidated reform programme under the Judiciary Transformation Framework, leadership and management entails the development of a new administration culture within the Judiciary through a confluence seeking to address the patronage-based administration culture of the past. This would therefore contribute to moving the organization to a more valued, efficient and publicly acceptable institution. Work under this component principally aims to contribute towards The Judiciary’s response to these leadership and management challenges seeking to address the disparity between the Judiciary’s orientation under the JTF and those administration cultures making for an uneasy partnership between the Judiciary and the Public. Two outputs are designed to contribute to achievement of this component and therefore contributing to de jure independence of the Judiciary as described in the Constitution and de facto independence, that is judicial independence as it is actually implemented in practice:

Output7: An institutional performance management system informed by a comprehensive job analysis established

Output8: Capacity for effective coordination of the judiciary transformation strengthened.

This output is important as it will contribute to all pillars (in terms of support) but broadly aligns with Pillar 3 (leadership, management, monitoring and reporting elements). As a more inwardly looking set of outputs (7&8), it is the aspiration of the Judiciary to ensure that that judicial staff are actively paving the way and providing the leadership for the judicial transformation agenda, ranging from the immediate to long-term. The Judiciary is currently facing increasing pressures to resolve disputes in the most efficient and cost-effective manner possible. However, the goal of courts is not only to resolve disputes but also to dispense justice fairly and impartially. In realizing these imperatives, professionalism of both the judicial staff as well as the administrative staff is core. Part of professionalism is upholding the highest standards of integrity which by extension forms the fundamental doctrinal basis of the principle of judicial independence, together with the desire to obviate potential constraints to the exercise of the judicial function. These outputs (7&8) are concerned with improvements within the Judiciary (Within the offices of the CJ, DCJ, CRJ, Supreme Court, and different Tribunals), targeted at creating a working culture that is grounded on transparency, accountability, ethical conduct and clearly articulated medium to long term plans. The component and associated outputs will have both an institutional and individual focus,

19

the latter addressing abilities of both Judicial and administrative staff within the larger picture of entrenching access to expeditious delivery of justice. It is further recognized that leadership in sustaining the reforms is integral across the institution and work under this outputs (7&8) will also see the strengthening of the Offices of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and the Chief Registrar in supporting the management and coordination of the comprehensive reform programme of the Judiciary. Three work areas are envisaged in strengthening leadership and coordination of the reforms. These include: - Technical assistance to the Office of the Chief Justice and Deputy Chief

Justice (To manage and coordinate transformation; support change management; research; and communication )

- Technical assistance to the Office of the Chief Registrar (coordination and management of the transformation process, policy, capacity development)

- Project implementation, coordination, monitoring and reporting.

Additionally, in accordance with Constitutional provisions under Article 169 (1)(d) and (2) the Judiciary will progressively take on board the administration of all local tribunals thus far established and those established in the future. Initially however support under this project will target engagement with the HIV/AIDS Equity Tribunal. Support will focus on interventions towards institutional and technical support as well as advocacy and public engagement. When management and strategic documents are fully developed, activities will be appropriately situated and implemented to contribute to different outputs of this project.

1.2.2.2 Component 2.2: Growth of jurisprudence and judicial practice The Constitution requires the Judiciary to develop jurisprudence which is the lifeblood of any Judiciary. Sound jurisprudence would enable the Judiciary to assert its authority, command respect and distinction among its peers and earn respect and legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Legitimacy is central to governance from dual perspectives (normative and descriptive). Therefore legitimacy is crucial to the ability of the Judiciary to make valid decisions and orders as well as to the societal acceptance of such orders and decisions. The true and ultimate test of transformation of the Judiciary should be manifest in the quality of Jurisprudence emanating from the bench. This is an important component and will contribute to the comprehensive reform of the Judiciary of Growth of Jurisprudence. Growth of Jurisprudence and Judicial practice will not only be informed by generation, documentation and dissemination of local practice but also normative principles articulated in different international legal regimes such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) amongst others. As an example, the recommendations from the submission of the Country report for the CEDAW in 2011 and provisions of the UDHR in relation to the extensive provisions under the Bill of Rights in the Kenyan Constitution will inform the crafting and deployment of a series of trainings on economic, social and cultural rights, gender and sexual and gender based violence (as a build-up to trainings already offered) by the JTI, to Judicial officers and staff. Training will also be accompanied by documentation and dissemination of Judicial best practices and development of manuals and bench

20

books on a number of economic, cultural and social rights and equality issues including gender. The component has two main outputs that ultimately aim to grow a culture of continuous learning, judicial dialogue and peer review as there can be no genuine judicial transformation without such progression. More so there will be a number of initiatives towards repositioning the Judiciary Training Institute as a center for excellence in judicial education and research.

Output9: Capacity of the Judiciary Training Institute on training, monitoring and reporting developed. (Output being developed further and content will be updated in due

course)

Output10: Judicial practices through sharing of information and knowledge is strengthened. (Output being developed further and content will be updated in due course)

The output above will provide a mechanism for regular exchange and communication amongst the Judges and magistrates. It will concern itself with ensuring that Judges continue the educational process and as such comply with prescribed standards and as a result the Judges will take on the continued improvement of the quality of their own work.

1.2.2.3 Component 2.3: harnessing technology as an enabler for justice Technology uptake in the Judiciary has been slow yet it has the potential to be a hallmark of judicial reform. Technology application and use would not only influence pace and quality of access to Justice but would be very instrumental in taking the Judiciary reforms to another level in terms of concept and functionality, including in the rapid growth of jurisprudence. The component and its associated output would aim to contribute to the harnessing of technology in speedier trails and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of administrative processes through data processing and management and archiving of information. In addition to the use of ICT in the court process, deployment of ICT systems in carrying out management and administrative duties will pay a key role in enhancing efficiency and effectiveness in the day to day running of the courts both from a Judicial and Administrative perspective. Under this component, work around review and re-launching of the ICT policy of the Judiciary will form the principal areas of intervention. One main output will therefore contribute to the component:

Output11: A reviewed Judiciary ICT policy and ICT strategy is under implementation. A majority of activities will support the development of a revise ICT strategy and implementation of a number of elements that enable the full adoption and application of the strategy across the Judiciary, including mechanisms for coordination of a comprehensive roll out.

21

C. UNDP’s Niche and Previous interventions One of the core mandate of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is supporting national institutions in working towards building democratic Governance. This mandate includes development of both institutions and processes in line with ensuring that those are more responsive to the needs of ordinary citizens, including the poor, the women, the youth and minorities. Against this grounding UNDP and the Judiciary developed a preparatory assistance project in February 2012 that would principally contribute to institutional strengthening of the Judiciary. Support was provided to the Office of the Chief Justice in building executive and professional competence in line with fulfilling the expanded responsibilities of the Office under the new Constitution. Support would also see input into completion of the process of development of the reform framework under the now comprehensive Judiciary Transformation Framework, Launched in May 2012 and defining of a comprehensive assistance programme to the JTF. The current programme emanates from this support and builds on UNDP’s global mandate achieved in partnership with national counterparts such as the Judiciary. UNDP will draw upon its expertise and global network on access to Justice and rule of law in supporting the Judiciary to achieve its results as articulated above, more specifically through: Assistance in development of strategic documents that move forward reforms in the Judiciary and in the delivery of Justice; building capacity of orbit institutions in the Judiciary as well as the offices of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice, the Chief Registrar and the Supreme Court; supporting review and strengthening of mechanisms and processes within the Judiciary that enhance access to legal services for women and other special interest groups; strengthening communication, education and information sharing between the Judiciary and the public on access to Justice and the rule of law and provision of technical assistance through tapping into expertise that exists as part of the United Nation Volunteer (UNV) placement mechanism.

22

D. Stakeholder Analysis and roles

A careful approach and in-depth analysis of those stakeholders who are going to be involved and benefit from this project has been undertaken in different forms. The stakeholders will both be involved in the process of development of policies, capacity strengthening and technical assistance or be responsible themselves for design and implementation of different polices as part of contribution towards access to Justice. These institutions are identified below based on their constitutional and legal mandates and specialized skills within the chain of administration of justice.

NAME STATUTE MANDATE

National Council for Administration of Justice

Judicial Service Act (Chapter 1 of 2011)

To ensure a co-ordinated, efficient, effective and consultative approach in the administration of

justice and reform of the justice system.

National Council for Law Reporting

National Council for Law Reporting Act (Chapter 11 of 1994)

To Publish the Kenya Law Reports and related

publications; To revise, consolidate and publish the Laws of

Kenya; To perform such other functions as may be conferred by statute.

Judicial Training Institute To offer education and training to staff involved in the administration of justice.

Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association

To spearhead and safeguard the welfare and work interests of judicial officers

Kenya Women Judges Association

To promote gender parity in the Judiciary and to ensure that the Judiciary discharges its duty of ensuring that the vulnerable have access to justice.

E. ANNUAL WORK PLAN

Year: 1 April 2013 to 30 June 2014 (15 months)

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

And baseline, associated indicators and annual targets

PLANNED ACTIVITIES

List activity results and associated actions

TIMEFRAME RESPONSIBLE

PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Outcome Area 1: People-focused justice and service delivery (Corresponding JTF Components: Pillar 1: People-Focussed Delivery of Justice; Pillar4: Harnessing Technology as an Enabler for Justice)

Baseline (Baseline dates: 2012 and 2013):

Low levels of physical and functional access to courts; • Inequitable and poor levels of access to justice by Citizen’s; Limited coordination of the Institutions involved in the chain of

administration of Justice; Indicators:

Percentage increase in citizens use of courts and Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism to resolve disputes;

Percentage decrease in case cycle times;

Fully functional and coordinated administration of justice at the national and devolved levels; Targets:

National and International surveys demonstrate confidence, efficient and effective utilization of the Judiciary by the public;

NCAJ operational strategy under full implementation;

Means of Verification:

State of the Judiciary annual reports;

Project Progress reports;

National and International Surveys

Judiciary Customer Satisfaction; Surveys;

Respective NCAJ institutions’ progress reports;

Ombudsperson’s reports;

Media statements;

Component 1.1: Access to and Expeditious Delivery of Justice is Enhanced

Output1: Processes and systems enabling access to court services by citizens including special interest groups (Women, Children, Disabled, Youth, Marginalised) developed and deployed Baseline: Simplification of procedures for approaching the Court(s) initiated for at least 7 (seven) pieces of legislation as provided for by the Constitution Limited interpretation services for PLWDs utilizing the court facilities

Improve access of court services especially for people living with disabilities Action

Training a pool of language interpreters including sign language interpreters

RHC/RMC UNDP / Judiciary

Consultancy, venues

200,000

Review Probate and Administration Rules Action

Hire Consultant

hold workshops with stakeholders

Validate rules

RHC UNDP / Judiciary

Printing, venues, consultancy

100,000

24

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Indicators

Number of the rules outlining procedures for approaching the courts validated

Number of trained sign language interpreters

No trained staff on the civil procedure rules Targets:

Over 20 trained pool of interpreters deployed, half of whom are women

Court of appeal bill published

New COA rules, civil procedures, children practice and procedure, probate and administration rules promulgated

COA user guidelines published

Published court fees assessment booklets

Updated court fees assessment booklet Action

Review and printing of Court assessment booklets

Dir. Revenue Collection

UNDP / Judiciary


60,000

Review of Children practice and procedure Action

Hire Consultant

hold workshops with stakeholders

Validate rules



100,000

Develop a Children’s Policy Action

Hire Consultant

Hold stakeholder workshops

Validation workshops



100,000

Operationalize the civil procedure rules Action

Train the bar and bench committees on the civil procedure rules



50,000

Court of appeal guidelines reviewed Action

Hire consultant to review the guidelines

Hold a validation workshop

Develop COA user guidelines print and disseminate

RCOA UNDP / Judiciary Consultancy

100,000

Output2: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms developed and embedded in law Baseline: Absence of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms as provided for by the Constitution;

Evidence based ADR Strategies and Mechanisms Action

Commission a study on ADR and TDRM to establish the extent to which it is applied within Court Users Committees

NCAJ UNDP / Judiciary

Research Consultancy

100,000

25

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Limited judicial and public knowledge on ADR and TDRM and their application Indicators:

ADR mechanisms in place and under application

Number of cases dispenses off using ADR and TDRM

Targets:

Report on the Extent ADR is applied within court users committees

Trained Judicial officers and Stakeholders on ADR

Published ADR information pamphlets

Stakeholders engaged on ADR

Sensitize all Judicial officers on ADR mechanisms Action

Develop and print ADR information pamphlets

Train stakeholders and Judicial officers on ADR Mechanism

RHC / RMC UNDP / Judiciary Training

700,000

Component 1.2: People-Centeredness and Public Engagement is Improved

Output3: A comprehensive Judiciary information, education and communication strategy developed and implemented Baseline:

IEC Communication Strategy developed Action

Hire a consultant to develop the communication strategy

Hire a consultant to develop a brand strategy Develop print and disseminate IEC materials

DPAC UNDP / Judiciary

Communication Expert

PR Expert

900,000

26

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Absence of a comprehensive judiciary communication strategy Indicators:

Communication strategy and Policy in place and under implementation

Improved engagement with the public (media center, media guidelines, IEC material)

Targets:

IEC communication Strategy

IEC materials developed and disseminated

Media centre operational

Court room media guidelines developed and implemented

Improved Public awareness and engagement with the Public. Action

Implementation of TV/ radio/ newspaper ads and appearances

Develop and implement outreach community programs

Development and disseminate IEC materials about the Judiciary

Holding periodic forums with key suppliers for the current financial year to enable them present their views on the external operations of the supply chain and present their grievances as part of the Judiciary’s transformation process

DPAC

DSCMS

UNDP / Judiciary

TV /Radio and Newspaper adverts

Printing of IEC materials

900,000

Establishment of a Media Centre Action

Procure equipment for the media centre

Development of media guidelines for the court rooms

Training media on the court room guidelines and journalists on reporting on Judicial matters

DPAC UNDP / Judiciary

Procure equipment for the media centre

Printing of IEC materials , venues

500,000

Output4: Public complaints mechanism in the Judiciary strengthened Baseline: Established office of the ombudsperson Limited knowledge amongst the public on the Judiciary complaint system

Create public awareness on complaint mechanisms Action

Hold Open Day activities in courts

Establish customer service desks in every court stations

Development and dissemination of flyers on the complaint procedures

Train staff deployed to the service desks

Ombudsperson UNDP / Judiciary

Consultancy, Meeting venues, printing, procurement

100,000

27

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

An established online and SMS complaint systems Indicators:

No of public open days held

No of customer care desks established leading to rapid receipt and disposal of public complaints against the judiciary

% reduction in complaints against the Judiciary

Targets:

Ombudsperson’s office strategic plan and structure

Over half of all court stations have working complaint systems in place

Enhanced Coordination of the office of the ombusperson

Development of a strategic plan for the office of the ombudsperson

Develop and implement an organization structure for the ombudsperson

Strategic plan Validation

Ombudsperson

UNDP

/ Judiciary

Consultancy

Venues

Component 1.3: Stakeholder Engagement is Strengthened

Output5: The National Council for the Administration of Justice is operationalized Baseline: NCAJ established and launched in accordance with the Judicial Service Act Limited public knowledge on the NCAJ, and its mandate Indicators:

A national public engagement strategy with the NCAJ is under implementation

Technical assistance to the NCJA contributes to effective coordination and administration

Targets:

NCAJ National public engagement strategy

Technical Assistance embedded with the NCAJ

Expand public knowledge of the operations of NCAJ Agencies and Citizen’s rights to services Action

Develop a national public engagement strategy for Court Users Committees- production of IEC materials and Joint- litigant charters for NCAJ Agencies

NCAJ UNDP

Consultancy

Printing, publishing, meeting venues

100,000

Build the capacity of the NCAJ Secretariat Action

Provide Technical Assistance in Change Management, Resource Mobilization and Policy Formation

NCAJ UNDP Consultancy

200,000

Implement Justice sector best practices Action

Conduct an induction/ benchmarking tour for NCAJ Secretariat

NCAJ UNDP/ Judiciary

Study Tour, Travel, Publishing

600,000

28

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

secretariat

Curb inter-agency staff haemorrhage Action

Conduct a study on the Discrepancies in Terms of Service and Pay for NCAJ Agencies with recommendations for rationalization/ harmonization

NCAJ UNDP

Research Consultancy, printing

200,000

Output6: Court User Committees operating framework and guidelines implemented Baseline: CUC guidelines gazetted Indicators:

Key provisions of the CUC guidelines implemented

Improved stakeholder engagement

Active and functional CUC’s Targets:

Establishment of county CUC’s (47 Counties)

Over 47 trained CUC chairs and treasurers on budgeting and planning

Coordinate the establishment and operation of all CUCs countrywide Action

Facilitate the establishment of County CUC Secretariats

Sensitize CUC chairs and treasurers on budgeting and planning

NCAJ Judiciary

Travel, Meeting venues, Consultancy

300,000

Bolstered communication and feedback between NCAJ and CUCs Action

Harmonize the operationalization of CUCs Guidelines

NCAJ Judiciary Consultancy, Publishing

100,000

29

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Outcome Area 2: Strengthened capacity within the Judiciary to deliver on its mandate (Corresponding JTF Components: Pillar 2: Transformative Leadership, Organizational Culture, and Professional and Motivated Staff,

Pillar 4: Harnessing Technology as an Enabler for Justice)

Baseline (Baseline dates: 2012 and 2013):

Low levels of application of principles of democratic governance in governance and administration of the Judiciary;

A Judicial culture that is retrogressive and impacts on effective, efficient and expeditious delivery of justice;

A Judiciary Transformation Framework with aspirations for comprehensive reform of the institution of the Judiciary; Indicators:

Percentage increase in training to Judicial staff and Judicial Officers and that translates to expeditious delivery of Justice;

Improved research, knowledge sharing, best practice documentation and Jurisprudence generally in Kenya;

Improved capacities within the Judiciary towards effective, efficient and expeditious delivery of Justice; Targets:

The Judiciary Training Institute offers comprehensive capacity development and training (framework for training, research, benchmarking, continuous learning, peer review and mentoring) to the entire Judiciary and as a consequence access to rights and justice is improved;

Strategic plans; operational plans; gender responsive staffing plans; thematic training plans; leadership and management guidelines; performance management framework; corruption prevention strategy; ethics, integrity and values framework, Judiciary code of ethics and conduct and other core governance improvement frameworks under full implementation with tangible results;

Means of Verification:

State of the Judiciary annual reports;

Project Progress reports;

National and International Surveys

Judiciary Customer Satisfaction; Surveys;

Media statements;

Strategic planning and visioning documents from different orbital institutions of the Judiciary;

JTI training reports;

Component 2.1: Leadership and Management in the Judiciary is Strengthened

Output7: An institutional performance management system informed by a comprehensive job analysis established Baseline: A staff and skills audit carried out Indicators:

Skills and audit report and recommendations operationalized

Judiciary wide application of a performance appraisal system

Validation of Job Descriptions Action

Develop a Comprehensive job descriptions for all jobs in the judiciary and a detailed performance appraisal template

Procure Consultant

DHRM UNDP/ Judiciary

Consultancy

200,000

Deployment of a HRM management system Action

Hire consultant to conduct an audit and develop/ Procure a comprehensive roll out of HRM system


300,000

30

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Targets:

Comprehensive job descriptions for all jobs in the judiciary

A detailed performance appraisal template based on both the hard (Balanced Score Card) as well soft (human relations) targets for each job category)

Analysis report of the Skills audit Action

Hire a consultant to implement recommendations in the skills audit report

Conduct certificate verification exercise for qualifications held by judiciary staff


Consultancy, Meeting Venues, Travel,

500,000

Output8:Capacity for effective coordination of the Judiciary transformation strengthened Baseline: Absence of an Annual Staff Performance Review Framework for the Judiciary Limited technical assistance to the Offices of the Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and Office of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court Limited capacities within Tribunals established for various national issues Indicators:

An Annual Staff Performance Review Framework under implementation Improves performance and enhances accountability in the judiciary

A multidonor assistance project to the JTF is reviewed, approved and under implementation

An assessment of requisite technical assistance (TA) to the OCJ, ODCJ, ORJ, Supreme Court informs provision of TA to these offices for effective delivery of the JTF

Targets:

Simplified financial procedure manual for AIE Holders Action

Development of the Judiciary AIE procedure manual

Train all AIE holders on the procedures

DFIN /DRC UNDP/ Judiciary

Training, Consultancy, Meeting venues, printing

200,000

Training/Exchange programmes for staff and judicial officer undertaken Actions

Facilitate international study tours

Facilitate thematic training seminars (including those on Gender)

RSC/RCOA/RHC/RMC/ DIRECTORS/ JTI

UNDP/ Judiciary

Meeting venues, Travel, Printing, Publishing

200,000

Performance Management System developed Action

Develop performance management template

Train staff on Integrated Performance Management system /Annual Staff Performance Reviews

DPM UNDP/ Judiciary

Training, Meeting venues, Travel,

250,000

Efficient and effective provision of financial information on a real time basis Action

Procure and operationalize an integrated Financial Management system

Train all relevant staff in finance of the use of IFMS

DFIN UNDP

Software and hardware for the IFMS and training

675,000

31

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Performance management evaluation template

AIE procedure manual

IFMS done

Fully functional TA and project support team to the judiciary

Enhanced planning, budgeting, accounting, monitoring and evaluation skills for staff Action

Short trainings for 4 Economist, 10 accountants

DFIN UNDP Tuition airfare and subsistence

300,000

Asset management system Action

Procure asset management system

Carry out training in the asset management system for relevant procurement staff

Carrying out the tagging of assets

DSCMS UNDP

Procure software and hardware

Training

260,000

Procurement Manual Action

Develop a procurement manual

Engage a consultant to advise on the decentralization and lead buyer initiative of the supply chain Directorate

DSCMS UNDP

Consultancy to develop Procurement manual and design a decentralization strategy

100,000

Technical assistance to the OCJ, DOCJ, ORJ, Supreme Court Action

Assessment of requisite TA capacities in OCJ, ODCJ, ORJ, Supreme Court,

Engage a consultants (TA) and support staff informed by assessment report

Institutional planning and visioning documents defined, discussed and adopted

Develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework hinged at the JTF and the integrated strategic plan of the judiciary

Conduct research on a variety of thematic areas to inform effective functioning of these offices

OCJ, ODCJ, CRJ, Supreme Court, HIV/AIDS Equity Tribunal

UNDP/ Judiciary / UNDP Regional Service Center / UNAIDS (UBRAF)

Consultancy, venues, Travel,

Publishing, Printing

1,300,000

32

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Component 2.2: Growth of Jurisprudence and Judicial Practice Improved

Output9: Capacity of the Judiciary Training Institute on training, monitoring and reporting developed (Output being developed further and content will be updated in due course) Baseline: Limited coordination for training and capacity building initiatives across the Judiciary Indicators:

Improved engagement of the JTI and research and academic institutions, NCAJ and other key stakeholders towards growth of Jurisprudence

Targets:

A framework for training, research, benchmarking, continuous learning, peer review and mentoring in the Judiciary in place

Keeping pace with the emerging issues of law Action

Development of integrated training curricula

Continuous legal education training for Registrars, Law Clerks, Researchers and registry Staff training institutes

Administration of training to both Judicial Officers and Staff

JTI / RSC/ RCOA/RHC/RMC

UNDP/ Judiciary

Printing,

Research,

venues, consultancy, Travel

100,000

Implementation of Concluding recommendations from International Treaty Bodies Action

Training of Judicial officers and staff on Human rights including Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Gender Mainstreaming, Sexual and Gender Based Violence within the Judiciary (Building on any previous trainings on these issues)

Judicial dialogue(s) on ESCs

Development of a Bench book on Equality/Gender

JTI/UNDP/OHCHR/UNWOMEN

UNDP/ Judiciary

Printing,

Research,


210,000

Output10: Judicial practices through sharing of information and knowledge is strengthened (Output being developed further and content will be updated in due course) Baseline: Existence of an annual colloquia for judges Limited best practices documentation and knowledge sharing platforms for judicial staff and Judicial officers

Enhanced growth of Jurisprudence Action

Procure of relevant research materials and i.e. books and subscriptions to law libraries

Short course trainings

Bench marking and collaborations in selected jurisdictions

Documentation of lessons learnt and best practices and their sharing across the Judiciary

Development of a Bench book on ESCs

RSC/RCOA/ RHC/RMC

UNDP/ Judiciary

Printing,

Research,


325,000

33

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

Indicators:

Lessons from Judicial practices documented and shared in informing administration of justice

At least one annual regional colloquia for judges

Bench books published Targets:

Family law bench book published

Annual regional Colloquia

Family Law Bench Book Action

Hire consultant to develop the bench book

Validate the bench book

Print the bench book and disseminate

RHC UNDP/ Judiciary

Printing,

Research,


90,000

Regional colloquia for Magistrates

Action

Facilitate annual regional colloquia for magistrates and Judges

Facilitate study tours

RSC/RCOA/ RHC/RMC

OHCHR/UNDP/ Judiciary

Printing,

Research


200,000

Component 2.3: Technology as an Enabler for Justice is Harnessed

Output11: A reviewed Judiciary ICT policy and ICT strategy is under implementation Baseline: Existence of a case management system in the Supreme Court and Court of appeal Absence of an online system to retrieve files from the registry Absence of an ICT policy An ICT strategic plan for the Judiciary Indicators:

An ICT policy developed and is under implementation

Number of files scanned and indexed Targets:

ICT Policy developed Action

Hire a consultant to develop a ICT Policy for implementation

DICT UNDP/ Judiciary

Consultancy

90,000

Online Case File Database Action

Scan and index all supreme court , Court of Appeal and High court files and the advocates section files

DICT / RSC /RCOA/RHC

UNDP/ Judiciary

Procure scanning services and database management system

700,000

Registry files tagged to curb loss of files Action

Tag Supreme Court Registry files and advocates files using RFID

Action – Integrate the case management system with RFID

Introduce bar code readers for file identification

DICT / RSC /RCOA/RHC

UNDP/ Judiciary

Procure bar coding system

680,000

34

EXPECTED OUTPUTS


PLANNED ACTIVITIES



PARTY

PLANNED BUDGET

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Funding Source

Budget Description

Amount- USD

ICT policy developed

Searchable online case filing system using barcodes for the supreme court and the advocates section and the family division within one year

Case data forms available online

Cause list on the website and accessible via SMS

Trained Court Personnel Action

Hold trainings for judicial staff on the case management system

Training Management

IT Audit and security

DICT UNDP/ Judiciary

Training, Meeting Venues, Consultancy, Travel

400,000

Online Case data forms Action

Develop an online system of filling in court forms by the litigants

Develop online display of causelist on the Judiciary website and sms platform

DICT/RSC/RCOA/RHC/RMC

UNDP/ Judiciary

Procure web and sms based system for the causelist

400,000

TOTAL 13, 070,000

F. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS The business case for coordinated support to the Judiciary has been elaborated. To effectively deliver on the objectives highlighted in this project, there is established a set of management arrangements that will continuously ensure that the project is adhering to the established business case. These management arrangements considered together will provide the necessary direction, management, control and coordinated communication for the project. As the project involves different forms of partnership for its effective, efficient and sustained delivery, especially attracting different skills, interests and specialised institutions, these management arrangements aims at providing a coherent framework for understanding, planning and managing all JTF project-based activities. These project management arrangements takes due consideration that financial and non-financial support to the Judiciary towards successful implementation of the JTF is received from different partners with different engagement modalities with the Judiciary and Kenya in general. The management arrangements have been defined with this in mind. Relevant mechanisms with regard to coordination at a) basket, and b) out of basket are elaborated as part of the management arrangement section.

1. Partners to the project The Kenyan Judiciary has the ultimate responsibility for the delivery of the objectives and aspirations of the JTF. The Judiciary is the designated implementing partner for the project. According to UNDP policies and regulations, the Judiciary, as an implementing partner is entrusted the implementation of assistance specified in a signed document along with the assumption of full responsibility and accountability for the effective use of resources in the project document and the delivery of outputs, as set forth in the project document. This choice of implementation arrangements is defined as the National Implementation Modality (NIM). The Office of the Registrar of the Judiciary will have the main responsibility for the management of the project. Responsible parties are those institutions within the JTF that have been identified by the Judiciary to act on its behalf based on written agreement and using the funds from this project. These institutions are identified based on their constitutional mandates and specialized skills within the chain of administration of justice, to deliver certain portions of the project outputs on behalf of the implementing partner and in fulfilment of their corresponding mandates. Such institutions (Outlined under Section D. Stakeholder analysis and roles) would include the Judiciary Training Institute; Kenya Magistrates and Judges Association; Kenya Women Judges Association; National Council on the Administration of Justice; National Council for Law Reporting amongst others. The Government cooperating agency is the institution of the Kenyan Government that is responsible for government’s participation in all UNDP-assisted projects in Kenya, which is the National Treasury. The project document will be signed by the Chief Justice of the Judiciary, the UNDP Resident Representative and the Principal Secretary, National Treasury. A representative of the Governments cooperating agency, in this case the National Treasury will be designated by the State Department to participate in the management arrangements for this project.

36

The UNDP Country office will be responsible for receiving and administering the financial support from donors to the basket and will support the Judiciary in achieving the outputs defined in this project as well as in the receipt administration and reporting on the financial assistance received under this project in accordance with UNDP rules and regulations. Further, UNDP will share important lessons from similar interventions implemented in other countries of the world through its knowledge base and communities of practice. In UNDP, the UNDP Country Director and the Deputy Country Director – Programmes will bear the overall responsibility for the management of the project at UNDP. The development partners including UNDP are key partners in the successful implementation of the activities of this project not only through provision of financial and non-financial resources but also in providing comparative lessons based on similar support in other regions of the world.

2. Outlining roles, responsibilities and coordination mechanisms

A. The Judiciary Transformation Development Partners Forum (JT-DPF) The JT-DPF is established for this project as the highest level coordination mechanism. Chaired by the Honourable Chief Justice for the entire duration of the project, the JT-DPF will principally aim at sharing information with the development partners at a strategic level on progress of implementation of the JTF with respect to the National Change agenda as is enshrined in the Constitution. The JT-DPF would discuss any difficulties in achieving key results in each of the 4 pillars of the JTF and propose policy level recommendations on addressing these key challenges. The membership of the JT-DPF would be as follows:

Honourable Chief Justice of Kenya Chairperson

Heads of missions from all development partners

Selected NCAJ Members

Institutions involved in implementation of activities of the JTF

Office of the Chief Registrar of the Judiciary and UNDP Secretariat The JT-DPF would convene every 6 months. The initial meeting of the JD-DPF would review an outline of the project under which the JTF activities would be implemented.

B. The Judiciary Transformation Framework Steering Committee (JTF-SC) The JTF-SC also referred to as the Steering Committee will be established as a policy level management arrangement for this project. The JTF-SC is the highest level, decision making and strategic group for the project and its membership will be constituted at a senior position. It is charged with generation of management decisions necessary for smooth implementation of the project. The steering committee will ensure that the project is managed in accordance with the highest standards and principles of results realization, best value money, fairness, integrity, transparency and international competition. In executing these functions, the JTF-SC will review quarterly project progress reports and quarterly project workplans and other management information that may be presented to it by the secretariat of the JTF-SC. The JTF-SC will be supported by a Secretariat constituted by the Office of the Registrar of the Judiciary and the UNDP.

37

The Key roles of the JTF-SC are:

Provide overall guidance and direction to the project, ensuring it remains within specified parameters;

Provide ad-hoc direction and advice;

Review the project progress and provide direction and recommendations to ensure that the agreed deliverables are produced satisfactorily according to plans;

Provide guidance on new project risks and agree on possible countermeasures and actions to address specific risks;

Ensure that required resources are committed and arbitrate on any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems between the projects and external bodies.

Quality assuring any evaluation process and products, and using evaluations for performance improvement, accountability and learning;

In ensuring smooth execution of its roles and responsibilities, the JTF-SC will include the following functions:

Project Director (Executive): The Office of the Registrar of the Judiciary will assume this function, specifically representing the project ownership and as chair of the group. Supplier: For this project, UNDP and the Development Partners, will represent the interests of the parties concerned with provision of funding and non-funding (technical expertise) to the project. For this forum all contributing donors (to basket and out of basket) will nominate, technical level experts working in the field of Democratic Governance to participate in the JTF-SC. Beneficiary Representative: The National Treasury as the Government cooperating agency will represent the interests of those who will ultimately benefit from the project. The primary function within the Board is to ensure the realization of project results from the perspective of project beneficiaries. Project Assurance: Project Assurance is the responsibility of the Steering Committee. This role however can be delegated. The project assurance role supports the Project Board by carrying out objective and independent project oversight and monitoring functions. This role ensures appropriate project management milestones are managed and completed. Project Assurance has to be independent of the Project Manager; therefore, the Project Board cannot delegate any of its assurance responsibilities to the Project Manager at the Judiciary. The UNDP Programme Officer, in charge of managing the assistance to the Judiciary typically holds the Project Assurance role on behalf of UNDP.

Regularity of meetings of the steering committee may only be adjusted by the steering committee itself. The JTF-SC will convene twice every month, initially for the first 6 month of the project implementation. For the following 6 months, the JTF-SC will meet every month and thereafter, the regularity of the JTF_SC will be defined by the JTF_SC based on the progress of implementation of activities under the project. Office of the Registrar of the Judiciary and UNDP will provide secretariat functions to the Steering Committee. Office of the Registrar of the Judiciary and UNDP

38

may meet in advance of the Steering Committee to elaborate the agenda for the steering committee meeting and manage documentation for presentation to the steering committee.

C. Judiciary Transformation Framework Technical Coordination Forum (JTF-TCF) The establishment of this project is based on the recognition that the JTF successful implementation depends on achievement of interrelated targets and goals. Many of the expected results will be supported through financial resources and other forms of resources such as technical assistance and through provision of non-financial resources. To enable a better aggregation of support to the Judiciary from the development partners, a technical level coordination forum will be established, convened by the Judiciary. This forum will be an important avenue to share amongst development partner representatives on the kind of support that they are providing to the Judiciary, with an aim of leveraging on each other’s strengths and comparative advantages. This forum will therefore lead to more strategic support to the Judiciary from all the involved development partners. The JTF-TCF will be a quarterly forum and will benefit from the inputs of the JTF-SC. Nominated representatives from all development partners, (contributing and non-contributing) will be invited to attend. The JTF-PMT will be responsible for the management of the meetings of the JTF-TCF and all associated secretariat functions.

D. Judiciary Transformation Framework Project Management Team (JTF-PMT) A JTF-PMT will be established for this project for effective management. The JTF-PMT will work within established working arrangement of a Project/Programme Management Unit (PMU) that will be set up by the Judiciary. The JTF-PMT will be located at the Judiciary and will include:

Project Manager: The Project Manager will be responsible for running of the project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of the Judiciary within the parameters laid down by the Steering Committee. The Project Manager will be responsible for day-to-day management and decision-making for specific activities of the project. The Project Manager’s prime responsibility is to ensure that the project produces the results (outputs) as specified in the project document, according to required standard of quality and within the specified parameters of time and cost. The Judiciary will appoint the Project Manager. Project Support: Project Support functions will be elaborated by the Judiciary and will provide project administration, management and technical support to the Project Manager. The Judiciary will appoint person(s) to fulfil various project support roles.

39

3. Project implementation structure Below is a presentation on the project implementation structure with relationships between the project board, project assurance and the implementation team.

A. Financial management arrangements The Judiciary transformation support project will be implemented on national implementation modality (NIM), with The Judiciary as the implementing partner (IP). As the implementing partner, The Judiciary has fiduciary and compliance responsibilities to UNDP and requirement to comply with UNDP reporting requirements. Towards management of funds under this basket arrangement, the Judiciary will open a specific programme account through which all the funding to activities under this project will be funded from, once funds have been disbursed from UNDP. UNDP will disburse funds to be used in carrying out activities under this project through three main disbursement modalities: Cash advances to the Judiciary, direct payment to vendors after provision of services to the Judiciary appertaining to this project and reimbursement for funds spent by The Judiciary to implement activities planned and authorised under this project. Unless otherwise mutually agreed between UNDP and the Judiciary, the government of Kenya financial rules and regulations, shall apply in the receipt and administration of all resources by the Judiciary under this programme. The Judiciary will maintain records and controls for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy, reliability of financial information and to ensure that disbursements are within the approved budgets. To this end, The Judiciary with the support of the JTF-PST will have a tracking system through which it will maintain records and controls for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the financial information. The tracking system shall ensure that envisaged disbursements are within the approved budgets.

Project Manager

Project Board

Beneficiary

National Treasury

Executive

Judiciary

Supplier

UNDP + Donors

Project Assurance

UNDP Programme

Officer

Project Support

Team

Project Organisation Structure

TEAMS

(DIRECTORATES + ORBIT

INSTITUTIONS+TRIBUNALS)

40

B. Project Procurement As a NIM project, the Kenyan Government’s established rules and procedures governing procurement may be used when items are procured using basket funds, as long as they do not contravene UNDP’s rules and procedures. A procurement plan will be maintained by the JTF-PMT and this will be used as a basis through which the Judiciary informs UNDP of all planned procurement for the project. The Judiciary will ensure that decisions regarding procurement under the basket fund will not be taken without the participation of the project manager or the procurement officer. The project manager or procurement officer must be represented in all procurement committees that are held to evaluate quotations and bid offers under the basket. In exceptional circumstances, the IP may request UNDP to procure goods and services under the project. In this case, UNDP procurement rules will be followed. UNDP will only accept this option if the JTF - SC so recommends or by virtue of its global presence, it will be expeditious to use UNDP procedures.

C. Resource leveraging and strategic partnerships Design of this project takes into consideration the fact that support by development partners to the Judiciary has been ongoing. The project seeks to build upon these previous and existing partnerships and leveraging from interventions to complement action and deepen impact and continuity of these interventions. Below is a matrix that maps assistance given to the Judiciary in the past or is currently ongoing. Actual synergies and leveraging opportunities will be assessed and adopted at the level of implementation of activities.

ACTIVITY Development Partner

Development Judiciary Transformation Framework (JTF) (Sweden) GIZ

Judiciary MTEF (2012/13-2014/15) and 2012/13 Annual Budget (Sweden) GIZ

Judiciary Financial Management-Regulations for the Judiciary Fund plus PFM Guide (Sweden) GIZ

Judiciary-Organization Design& HR Development(TOR & RFP development) IDLO

Judiciary ICT Strategic Plan 2012-2016 (Sweden) GIZ

Devolved Judiciary-Regional/Station Strategic Plans 2012-2016 GIZ/ IDLO (Denmark)

Devolved Judiciary-Regional/Station Work Plans/Budgets for 2012/13 GIZ/ IDLO (Denmark)

Devolved Judiciary Public Financial Management Outline (Sweden) GIZ

Judiciary Planning-Cost Budget Model Outline (Sweden) GIZ

National Council for Administration of Justice-Admin, Logistics and Secretariat (Sweden) GIZ

World Bank/Judiciary JPIP Preparations WORLD BANK

Court Facilities Needs Assessment WORLD BANK

World Banks own JPIP Preparations-M&E/Data Baseline Assessment WORLD BANK

JPIP Preparations-Procurement Specialist Support WORLD BANK

Media/Communications Support-Office of the Chief Justice (Denmark) IDLO

Support to the Office of the Chief Justice – Technical Assistance UNDP

41

G. FRAMEWORK FOR MONITORING, EVALUATION AND AUDIT In accordance with the programming policies and procedures outlined by the UNDP and guidance of the JTF – SC will be monitored through the following: Within the annual cycle

On a quarterly basis, an assessment of progress against the measurement parameters (Outputs, output indicators, targets and other project progress milestones) defined in the JTF and elaborated through the results matrix of the Judiciary strategic plan. A progress report shall be submitted to, reviewed and endorsed by the JTF – SC. The quarterly assessment shall record progress towards the completion of key results, based on quality criteria and methods captured in the quarterly workplans.

Based on the initial risk analysis submitted (see annex 1), an annual assessment of the

progression against this initial risk log shall be embedded into the annual progress report. Any new risks related to the external environment affecting the implementation of the project shall be regularly identified and documented and form the basis for an annually updated risk monitoring framework. Any critical risks that may adversely affect project implementation shall be escalated to the JTF – SC at any time in project implementation, submitted by the Project Manager through Project Assurance.

The JTF – SC may institute periodic surveys or other data collection methodology in the

course of the project to generate baseline, progress and other monitoring data that may be required in tracking project progress, measuring project impact or understanding any other progress parameters as it may deem necessary as part of regular monitoring.

Periodic visits to assess general project implementation and engagement with

stakeholders across the country will for a key aspect of regular project monitoring and inform progress reporting in accordance with the established monitoring framework.

Annually

Annual Review Report. An Annual Review Report shall be prepared by the Project Manager and shared with the JTF - SC. This is being established as the minimum requirement for project progress reporting. The Annual Review Report shall be in a format that is compatible with Judiciary reporting requirements and UNDP requirements for quality reporting. Such a report, covering the whole year, will contain updated information for each project component and associated output elements of the quarterly progress report as well as a summary of results achieved against pre-defined annual targets at the output level.

Annual Project Review. Based on the above report, an annual project review shall be

conducted during the fourth quarter of the year or soon after, to assess the performance of the project and appraise the Annual Work Plan (AWP) for the following year. In the last year of project implementation, this review will be a final assessment. This review is driven by the JTF - SC and may involve other stakeholders as required. It shall focus on the extent to which progress is being made towards outputs, and that these remain aligned to appropriate outcomes.

42

At mid-point of the JTF

Tracking progress of implementation of the activities of this project and the implication with respect to results being realised is key in ensuring that the results articulated in the JTF are progressively being realised. While all efforts will be put in place to ensure that the project stays on course towards fully contributing to the JTF and its related operationalization strategies and plans a mid-point review of the project will be a key milestone in examining this progress. The JTF – SC will commission an independent project mid-point implementation review. The approach, content and specificity of this review will be defined by the JTF – SC. However it will be principally meant to assess the progress of the project both substantially and financially towards achievement of the results articulated in the JTF. An independent firm will be recruited to conduct such a review. The review will take into consideration all progress reporting under the project, by the Judiciary as part of fulfilling its statutory obligations and the work of all the executing partners under this project.

Auditing the project

This project will be audited at least once in its lifetime. The objective of an audit is to provide the UNDP and other development partner’s assurance that project resources are being managed in accordance with UNDP rules and regulations, more specifically:

UNDP’s financial regulations, rules, practices and procedures for the Work Plan or project;

The Work Plan activities, management and implementation arrangements, monitoring evaluation and reporting provisions; and the requirements for implementation in the areas of management, administration and finance.

Thus an audit of this project must confirm and certify that:

Disbursements are made in accordance with the Work Plan;

Disbursements are valid and supported by adequate documentation;

An appropriate system for internal control is maintained by the Implementing Partner and can be relied upon;

Work Plan financial reports are fair and accurately presented;

The Work Plan monitoring and evaluation reports are prepared as required;

Work Plan disbursements are duly verified by the implementing partner and;

The procurement, use control and disposal of non-expendable equipment are in accordance with Government and UNDP requirements.

UNDP takes the responsibility to audit the basket fund portion of the project only. A reputable firm sub-contracted by UNDP will conduct the audit as per UNDP rules and regulations. In the event of such an audit, the IP will ensure that auditors are given all records and information that they will need to perform a meaningful audit. It is the responsibility of the IP to ensure that all audit observations within its control are attended adequately. The IP may include the activities of this project in the normal audit for their use. UNDP activities for procurement of goods and services shall be subjected exclusively to the internal and external auditing procedures provided for in the financial regulations, rules and directives of UNDP.

43

H. LEGAL CONTEXT This document together with the Country Programme Action Plan (CPAP) signed by the Government and UNDP which is incorporated by reference constitute together a Project Document as referred to in the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement (SBAA) and all CPAP provisions apply to this document. Consistent with the Article III of the Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, the responsibility for the safety and security of the implementing partner and its personnel and property, and of UNDP’s property in the implementing partner’s custody, rests with the implementing partner. The implementing partner shall:

a) put in place an appropriate security plan and maintain the security plan, taking into account the security situation in the country where the project is being carried;

b) assume all risks and liabilities related to the implementing partner’s security, and the full implementation of the security plan.

UNDP reserves the right to verify whether such a plan is in place, and to suggest modifications to the plan when necessary. Failure to maintain and implement an appropriate security plan as required hereunder shall be deemed a breach of this agreement. The implementing partner agrees to undertake all reasonable efforts to ensure that none of the UNDP funds received pursuant to the Project Document are used to provide support to individuals or entities associated with terrorism and that the recipients of any amounts provided by UNDP hereunder do not appear on the list maintained by the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999). The list can be accessed via http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/committees/1267/1267ListEng.htm. This provision must be included in all sub-contracts or sub-agreements entered into under this Project Document”.

I. Management of risks RISK LOG

Project Title: The Judiciary Transformation Support project Award ID: Date:

# Description Type Impact &

Probability

Countermeasures and Risk Management Response Owner

1

Attracting and retaining core funding from the Government to sustain reforms in the Judiciary

Financial and Political

I-High P-Medium

- Proactively seek and engage with the executive, in charge of planning and finance, grounded on the JTF and respective Strategic Plan(s) of the Judiciary, to advocate for additional State resourcing (progressively) from the national budget to the Judiciary Fund;

- Build upon the current relations between government and the judiciary, developed in a climate of mutual respect and without open interference or meddling;

The Judiciary

2

Attracting and retaining financial resources for comprehensive support to the reform programme from Development Partners

Financial I-Medium P-Medium

- Regular dialogue between the Judiciary and the development partner community;

The Judiciary

3

Coordination amongst stakeholders in the chain of administration and delivery of justice

Organizational I-High

P-Medium

- Strengthen coordination mechanisms for the institutions established under the NCAJ under the leadership of the Office of the Chief Registrar;

- Actively engage in dialogue with NCAJ membership in pressing for passing of all necessary legislation touching upon the NCAJ member institutions in promoting reforms in the chains of administration of Justice;

- Continue active engagement in the dialogue as part of the GJLOS II Reform Programme;

The Judiciary

4

Ownership of reforms within the Judiciary Strategic I-High P-High

- Sustain Judiciary top leadership commitment to the reform programme/process and continuously assure the institution of their commitments towards the reforms;

- Through leadership of the Judiciary provide opportunities for Inspiration, mentorship and Intellectual stimulation of Judiciary staff, geared towards effective engagement and roll out of the reform;

- Develop an organization and reforms culture that attracts and retains talented staff;

The Judiciary

5 Complexity of the reform programme could hinder effective execution, monitoring and

Organizational I-High

P-High

- Clear identification of areas of work, systematic engagement with stakeholders and logical sequencing and implementation of reform related activities;

The Judiciary

45

reporting - Establish opportunities for implementing activities smarter and faster within the context of the Judiciary reform framework documents;

6

Slow trickling of reforms from national to local levels and translation into improved access to justice

Organizational and Environmental

I-Medium P-Medium

- Appoint a reforms team (at different levels within the Judiciary) to champion the reforms from the National to the local levels and ensure that reforms at all levels are sustained. The team will also ensure that the reforms are not ‘event based’ but a process of reform;

The Judiciary

7

Sustaining the reform programme momentum and the public faith in the institution of the Judiciary

Organizational, Political and Programmatic

I-Medium

P-Medium

- Institute a cultural and reform orientation to both the Judiciary and the public that changes the way people think and provides opportunities to practice ‘new behaviours’ and develop ‘new habits’ towards the Judiciary;

The Judiciary

8

All requisite legislation around the Judiciary will be enacted in a timely manner, enabling full rollout of the reform programme

Political and Strategic

I-High P-High

- Actively engage in the formulation, development, review and stakeholder engagement around core Bills around the Judiciary

The Judiciary

9

Addressing/Stemming systemic integrity challenges in the Judiciary

Organizational and Environmental

I-High

P-High

- Institute innovation both within and outside of the Judiciary highlighting the benefits of a fully functional Judiciary and the necessity for upholding transparency and integrity in the delivery and receipt of Judicial services;

- Comprehensive outreach, information and communication opportunities for interaction of the Judiciary and the public;

The Judiciary

10

Capacity within the Judiciary to receive, administer, coordinate, monitor and report against utilization of financial assistance towards the comprehensive Judiciary Reform Programme(s) (Consider also against 1 and 2 above)

Organizational and Strategic

I-Medium P-Medium

- Establish a comprehensive coordination mechanism for all the development assistance to the Judiciary and include a clear communication and information sharing strategy amongst the development partners and the Judiciary;

- Build coordination, monitoring and reporting capacity within the Judiciary, based on a clear understanding of gaps and opportunities for capacity development;

The Judiciary Devt’ Partners

11

Political climate (at the national and devolved levels) related to roll out of new devolved government and lines of responsibility amongst established ministries could hinder full pace of roll out of reforms at the Judiciary

Political I-Medium

P-Medium

- Build on the prevailing political goodwill amongst different stakeholders towards the Judiciary and its comprehensive reform programme that is firmly based on the rule of law and the principle of separation of powers;

The Judiciary

project document template - united nations development · pdf file ·...

Documents