If you are unlucky to visit the courts, sayings like ‘justice delayed is justice denied’ and ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ will resonate very frequently. But the fact is that with millions of cases pending over extended periods, the system makes a mockery of helpless victims merely seeking justice. On the other hand, our police and legal fraternity perhaps yield the best crop out of the situation.
There are depressing tales of deprivations. Should we continue with the prevailing criminal justice system’s (CJS) procedures and structures, wishing it shall overcome stockpiles while moving at a snail’s pace, or should we look for Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) for expeditious disposal of cases?
It is heartening to know that the communities in some parts of the world run dispute resolution through their arbitration council. They do not go to the police or the courts and instead settle disagreements through this council which has the trust of the people.
Inexplicably solving a case is one thing; proving it in a court of law another.
Of course, many disputes are settled through courts, police stations and in the lawyers’ chambers. If ADR is doable at a smaller scale here, why not make it a norm at every stage as an obligatory tier of the CJS?
In the UN peacekeeping missions the belief is that dialogue is still the best way of managing disagreement.
The people are looking for fair, smooth, and speedy trials. The courts are endeavoring for completion of the due process for a fair verdict. The police, as the first responders, are looking to investigate and ensure completion of legal formalities to prosecute the wrongdoers. The procedure, though simple, is often stretched to favor the favorites.
Advocacy for ADR entails that it is inexpensive, swift, non-antagonistic, accommodating, durable and keeps confidentiality.
Common inherent risks attached with ADR are power disparity, unwilling adversaries and lack of models and ruling edicts. But, despite some inherent challenges, many countries have introduced reforms and have adopted ADR techniques, in responding to the challenges of an ever-increasing workload on police stations, revenue offices, and courts. The UK, Australia, China, Japan, India, Sri Lanka are some of the countries effectively using these ADR techniques with impressive results. ADR in Sri Lanka has exceptional status where a person cannot file a suit unless s/he has obtained a permit from the Mediation Board.
It is reassuring that Pakistan is now cultivating an interest in out-of-court procedures of dispute resolution. With economic changes and especially the Covid-19 crisis, the number of new legal disputes has increased significantly. Encouragingly, almost all prevailing laws acknowledge the resolution of a dispute through arbitration.
Isn’t it time we strengthened ADR as it can give people their dues reasonably and promptly? Everyone – lawyers, judges, police officers, relevant stakeholders, and even prison staff – should be oriented to develop the ability to settle issues no matter what the stage is. Justice should be inexpensive and swift, and not taken as mere business or a routine chore. So why not let ADR be the first line of action between contesting parties in all disputes?
At the moment, justice, unfortunately is seen as the comfort of the rich. It is time to change this ground reality. Relief must be given to those who are stuck in police stations and courts for years and years. It is imperative to resolve and restore peace between warring parties before there is nothing else to be lost among them.
Author: Charlie Duffield; Oliver Duff: Dr Syed Kaleem Imam
Source: Contribution by NICArb’s research team
