Judicial online case management system: Parly missed the point
Constitution,” he said.
“The English used on the IECS platform is very basic, like the litigant’s name, address etc. It is, therefore, my view that the use of English language on the IECMS does not offend s.6 of the Constitution.”
Mr Rangarirai said there was no country with 100 percent internet penetration, therefore, this could not stop a noble innovation like the IECMS on the flimsy reasons that some areas in Zimbabwe have no internet access as there will always be some areas without internet connectivity even 10 years from today.
“Should the whole country therefore wait until such areas are connected to the internet before making use of IECMS?” he said.
In its report, the PLC has not stated the perfect internet percentage penetration at which it would be acceptable to have IECMS.
The PLC seem to suggest that a fair hearing is only achieved when the public is in the court gallery.
Mr Rangarirai said this was not the case, as the public in the court gallery adds nothing to the fairness of a hearing.
In his view, he does not see how the fair hearing provision of the Constitution would be breached by having virtual hearings.
“In fact, it is enhanced as the hearing can be conducted while you are at your home and under familiar surroundings unlike a courtroom which can be intimidating and confusing,” he said.
In his opinion, Mr Rangarirai further submitted that the PLC got it wrong when it held that section 68 of the Constitution will be offended.
The cited section guarantees the right to administrative justice as a fundamental constitutional right. It provides that everyone “has the right to administrative conduct that is lawful, prompt, efficient, reasonable, proportionate, impartial and both substantively and procedurally fair”.
“It is my view that the PLC got this horribly wrong,” says Mr Rangarirai. “The IECMs enhance access to justice because cases are filed instantly without waiting for the courts to open or traveling long distances to go to the courts.
“Further litigation costs will be slashed as lawyers and litigants don’t need to travel to the courts to attend hearings. All this means that more people will have access to justice.”
Another law expert, Ms Nunudzayi Masunda, said it appeared the IECMS system had elitist consequences on access to justice.
“It assumes that every litigant has access to the internet at the speed required by the system and access enabled gadgets at best and or a legal practitioner,” she said.
“The language barriers, in which the system operates only in one language, further makes it inaccessible. One must be computer literate and also have sufficient understanding of the English language to access and use the system.”
But for Mr Rangarirai, the SI is in compliance with the Constitution and PLC seems not fully conversant with the IECMS system. They jumped the gun, he said. “Some MPs travelled to COP28 and COP29 and we had hoped they had understood the concept of climate change and why everybody should play their part,” he said. “The IECMS is a way of reducing environmental footprint and a climate change mitigation strategy.”
From the PLC report, it is clear that the MPs seem not to understand the role of the Registrar.
The Registrar only checks compliance with the IECMS platform regulations and checks if a litigant filed his or her documents under the correct headings only.
The Registrar does not decide whether summons, pleadings, among others are defective or not.
The PLC further cited the unavailability of electricity as another issue which makes the SI unconstitutional.
Surely, the absence of electricity is not a permanent state of affairs.
The digitalisation of court management processes is more than just moving the workflow to a cloud.
It is about leveraging technologies like AI and data-driven automation to reduce waiting time in courts and allow users to manage their time more efficiently.
For instance, electronic submission of documents can save time and retire the queues in courthouses. This lessens court interruptions and increases the level of vigilance of court users.
Court users have been spending time and public resources because of procedures that require their appearance in the court rooms.
Now with remote hearings in court, self-service and digital document management can change this.