2012 Baseline Survey of the Justice Sector of Ghana
FINAL REPORT
SUBMITTED BY
LAW AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES House NO. 43/26, Okponglo, East Legon, Near the Ecobank P. O. Box LG. 203 Accra, Ghana Telephone: +233-302-514261or +233-24-4675611 or +233-24-4624130 Fax: 233-302-514261 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ladagh.com
TO
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT Ministries Accra
AND UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME (UNDP) P. O. Box 1423, Accra, Ghana Close to the National Fire Service HQ Ring Road East Accra
December, 2012
CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 4
INDEX OF TABLES AND CHARTS ...... 5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 8
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 18
1.1 Purpose of the Baseline Survey ...... 18 1.2 Background to the Baseline Survey ...... 19 1.3 Organization of this Report ...... 21 2.0 METHODOLOGY ...... 23
2.1 A Three-Part Methodology ...... 23 2.1.1 Validation Meetings and Interactions ...... 23 2.1.2 Literature Audit ...... 23 2.1.3 Survey Instruments ...... 23 2.2 Field Work ...... 24 2.2.1 Training of Field Researchers ...... 24 2.2.2 Mapping out the Country ...... 24 2.2.3 Sampling Design...... 24 2.2.4 On the Field ...... 26 2.2.5 Field Challenges and Remediation ...... 26 2.3 Data Coding and Analysis ...... 27 3.0 SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 28
3.1 Demographic Characteristics ...... 28
Page 1 of 195
3.2 Findings on Public Knowledge on, Experiences with, and Attitudes to the Justice Sector ...... 30 3.3 Findings on Public Knowledge and Experiences of the Formal Justice system ...... 30 3.3.0 Findings on Public Knowledge and Experiences of the Informal Justice System. 36 3.3.1 Preferred Avenue for Redress of Grievances ...... 40 3.3.2 Findings on Public Attitudes to the Formal Justice System ...... 41 3.3.3 Findings on Public Attitudes to the Informal Justice System ...... 42 3.4 Findings on Public Levels of Knowledge on Human Rights ...... 43 3.5 Findings on Gender and Access to Justice ...... 45 3.6 Findings on Judicial Independence ...... 46 3.7 Justice Sector Corruption ...... 47 3.8 Reform Proposals from Respondents ...... 49 3.8.1 Reform Proposals for Improving Access to the Formal Justice System ...... 49 3.8.2 Reform Proposals for Improving Quality of the Formal Justice System ...... 51 3.8.3 Reform Proposals for Improving Access to the Informal Justice System ...... 51 3.8.4 Reform Proposals for Improving the Quality of Justice Delivery in the Informal Justice System ...... 52 4.0 FINDINGS ON JUSTICE SECTOR INSTITUTIONS ...... 54
4.1 Trend Analysis of Institutional Challenges of Justice Sector Institutions ...... 54 4.2 Matrix of Institutional Challenges of Justice Sector Institutions ...... 54 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS AND PLAN OF ACTION ...... 59
5.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM ...... 59 5.1.1 Justice Sector Reform Must Deal with the Formal and Informal Justice Sector Duality and Legal Pluralism ...... 59 5.1.2 Justice Sector Reform Must Deal with Justice Sector Institutions Other than the Courts ...... 60 5.1.3 Justice Sector Reform Must Include Building Citizenship on Justice Sector Issues 60 5.1.4 Generally Improving the Functioning of the Justice Sector ...... 61
Page 2 of 195
5.1.5 The Focus of Reform Must Include ADR in Particular ...... 62 5.1.6 Institutional Communication, Collaboration, and Coordination ...... 62 5.1.7 Institutional Development ...... 62 5.2 PLAN OF ACTION FOR JUSTICE SECTOR REFORM ...... 62 6.0 CONCLUSION ...... 105
7.0 APPENDICES ...... 106
7.1 Institutional Matrix ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.2 Draft Action Plan ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. 7.3 GROUP ONE: KNOWLEDGE AND COST ...... 63 7.4 GROUP TWO: USER FRIENDLINESS AND TIMELINES ...... 77 7.5 GROUP THREE: INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITIES ...... 85 7.6 GROUP FOUR: INDEPENDENCE AND INTEGRITY ...... 94 7.7 Literature Audit ...... 108 8.0 Report on Validation Meeting ...... 130
Page 3 of 195
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACL Ascertainment of Customary Law Project
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
CHRAJ Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice
CLR Council for Law Reporting
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DPs Development Partners
EOCO Economic and Organised Crime Office
JTI Judicial Training Institute
LAB Legal Aid Board
LAP Land Administration Project
LRC Law Reform Commission
MMDA Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assembly
MoE Ministry of Education
MoJ Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department
NCCE National Commission on Civic Education
NHC National House of Chiefs
PASW Predictive Analytical Software
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
Page 4 of 195
INDEX OF TABLES AND CHARTS
Tables Table A: Age and Gender Profile of Respondents ...... 28
Charts Figure A: Educational Background of Respondents ...... 29
Figure B: Occupation of Respondents ...... 29
Figure C: Regional Breakdown of Public Knowledge and Experience of the Formal Justice System ...... 31
Figure D: Public Understanding of the Processes and Proceedings in the Formal Justice System ...... 32
Figure E: Levels of Interaction with Formal Justice Institutions ...... 34
Figure F: Rating of the Formal Justice System ...... 35
Figure G: Regional Breakdown on Public Engagement of the Services of Lawyers ...... 36
Figure H: Regional Breakdown of Public Knowledge or Experience of the Informal Justice System ...... 37
Figure I: Rating of the Informal Justice System ...... 39
Figure J: First Choice Dispute Redress Avenues for the Public ...... 40
Figure K: Factors Influencing Respondents' use or recommendation of the Formal Justice system ...... 41
Figure L: Factors preventing “the use” OR “recommended use” the Informal Justice system ...... 43 Figure M: Public Levels of Knowledge on Human Rights ...... 43
Figure N: To Which Authority Did You Report the Human Rights Violation? ...... 44
Figure O: Reasons for not reporting Human Rights Violations ...... 45
Figure P: The Justice Sector and Gender Biased ...... 46
Page 5 of 195
Figure Q: Public perception of the Independence of the Justice Sector ...... 46
Figure R: Justice Sector Institutions to whom Unofficial Payments were made ...... 47
Figure S: Reform Proposals Aimed at Enhancing Access to the Formal Justice System ...... 50
Figure T: Reform Proposals Aimed at Enhancing the Quality of Justice Delivery in the Formal Justice System ...... 51
Figure U: Reform Proposals Aimed at Enhancing Access to the Informal Justice system ...... 52
Figure V: Reform proposals Aimed at Enhancing the Quality of the Delivery of Justice in the Informal Justice system ...... 52
Page 6 of 195
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research team sincerely thanks the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Dr. Benjamin Kunbour, and the Ag. Chief Director of the Ministry, Mr. Suleiman Ahmed, for their interest in the 2012 Baseline Survey and for offering invaluable support for the exercise. The field survey and in-depth interviews were largely successful due to letters of introduction to the team of researchers written by the Ministry of Justice.
We also wish to thank the Judicial Secretary, Mr. Justice Alex Poku-Acheampong, and his Deputy, Mr. John Bosco Nabarese, for facilitating the interviews with various critical respondents in the judicial service.
Similarly, we thank all the institutions and respondents listed in an appendix to this report for spending time in discussion with us over the matters contained in the interview guide.
We wish to thank all the anonymous respondents who willingly took time off their schedules to respond to the long questionnaire we used to conduct the study. But for their participation and inputs this exercise would not have been successful.
We finally wish to thank the UNDP for providing both financial and technical support for the study, especially their Governance Specialist, Mrs. Jane Owiredu Yeboah, for coordinating the support effort.
Page 7 of 195
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Purpose of the Baseline Survey
The purpose of this baseline survey is to provide information on the current levels of knowledge, experience and attitudes of the public to the justice sector in Ghana.
The survey also collates views of the public and of stakeholders on challenges in the sector and how these may be remediated.
The hope is that the findings of the survey will form the basis for the creation of a single, coherent, cohesive and coordinated set of proposals for reforms in the justice sector of Ghana.
Background to the Baseline Survey
The Justice Sector in Ghana has been the subject of a plethora of reform efforts since independence in 1957. These reforms have varied in object and in scale, but their principal focus has been consistent: to remove the roadblocks and bottlenecks to real, impartial, accessible, cheap and timely justice; ensure that the justice sector facilitates the growth of the economy; and position justice sector institutions to support constitutional democratic governance and the rule of law in Ghana and in accordance with international best practice.
Many and varied, these reform efforts have been largely uncoordinated. This has been a function of isolated reform initiatives by different institutions in the justice sector. It has also been a function of institutions seeking assistance from DPs for stand-alone reform efforts that are privileged by DPs own priorities and programming.
The MoJ, with support from the UNDP, is therefore undertaking this baseline survey as the beginning of a sector-wide reform agenda, leading to the coordination and harmonization of reform initiatives in the justice sector.
Methodology
A three-part methodology was used to execute the baseline survey. These are: a Literature Audit, Field Surveys and Interviews, and Validation Meetings and Interactions.
Page 8 of 195
The literature audit component of the methodology consisted of an analysis of pertinent literature on the justice sector in Ghana and in similar jurisdictions. The literature audit was conducted along four broad themes of: Democracy, Rule of Law and the Justice Sector; Administration of Justice; Historical Reforms and Reform Proposals. The literature audit is an appendix to this report.
The survey instrument consisted of a mix of open and close-ended questions and was more quantitative in design. This enabled respondents to make a set of choices and provide reasons for the choices made. On the other hand, the interview guide was totally qualitative in design. This enabled the key stakeholders interviewed an unlimited breadth in answering the questions.
Field researchers were recruited and trained to undertake the nationwide survey, whilst the Senior Researchers in the research team managed the in-depth interviews with key stakeholders. A sample size of one thousand (1000) was deemed adequate for the survey. This ensured that there were sufficient sampling units available for meaningful analyses and inferences based on the national population figures, within a margin of error of plus or minus three percent (3%), with a confidence interval of ninety-five percent (95%). In the main, quantitative data analyses techniques were used in coding and interpreting the data gathered from the survey. On the other hand, qualitative techniques were used in analyzing the responses from the in-depth interviews with key stakeholders of the justice sector.
Validation Meetings and Interactions
A cross-section of key players in the justice sector including CSOs were engaged with during the survey. These stakeholder engagements and inputs were central to the methodology of the Baseline Survey. Two main key stakeholder engagements were undertaken during the survey. The initial stakeholder engagement was for the purpose of validating the proposed methodology and indicators for the survey. The methodology was proposed, discussed and improved at an inception validation meeting with stakeholders from the Justice Sector. Based on the input received from stakeholders at the meeting, and through email dialogue with some stakeholders, the methodology and the survey instruments were revised. Similarly, the findings, recommendations and action plan in this report were discussed at the second stakeholders' validation meeting. Participants at this meeting generated a draft action plan which highlights the key problems in the justice sector and proposed reforms sequencing, indicators and for monitoring the reforms.
Page 9 of 195
These engagements largely ensured stakeholder ownership and commitment to future reforms based on the recommendations in this report.
Survey Findings
Overall, nine hundred and forty six (946) respondents were fully interviewed for the survey. An additional fifty-five (55) interviews were conducted using the in-depth interview guide. From the data, (sixty-nine point three percent) (69.3) of the total number of respondents were within the age bracket of 18-35 years. Whereas one point six percent (1.6%) of the total number of respondents were sixty-five (65) years and above. Some sixty-eight point four percent (68.4%) of the total numbers of respondents were male whilst thirty one point six percent (31.6%) were female.
Findings on Public Knowledge and Experiences of the Formal Justice system
Overall, forty percent (40%) of the respondents unequivocally stated that they had some knowledge or experience of the formal justice system. However, sixty percent (60%) of the respondents said they had no concrete knowledge or experience of the formal justice system. Out of the sixty percent (60%) of the respondents who answered in the negative, twenty-three (%) answered a definitive ‘No’, while the remaining thirty-seven percent (37%) were unsure of their knowledge or experience of the formal justice system.
Respondents were asked a follow-up question on their understanding of the processes and proceedings in the formal justice system. Forty-one percent 41% of the respondents answered ‘Yes’ while fifty-nine percent (59%) answered ‘No’.
A very high number of the respondents (well over one-third) had interacted with the Police Service. Majority of the respondents stated that they have never interacted with Legal Aid officers, CHRAJ officers, ADR officials, and Prosecutors. Neither had they interacted with Prison officers and Court officials or judges.
Majority of the respondents rated the formal justice system as moderately fair, independent and professional in its processes and proceedings. However, the level of transparency and the speed of the processes and proceedings were rated very low by respondents. Also, majority of the respondents rated the formal justice system as highly corrupt.
Page 10 of 195
Finally, seventy-two percent (72%) of the respondents who had knowledge or experience of the formal justice system, stated that they have had some challenges with the formal justice system. Highest on the list of challenges were the issues of delay and frequent adjournments of proceedings. This was followed closely by the issue of cost of initiating proceedings in the formal justice system, including the cost of procuring the services of lawyers.
Findings on Public Knowledge and Experiences of the Informal Justice System.
From the data, thirty-eight percent (38%) of the respondents had knowledge or experience of the informal justice system. Also, eighteen percent (18%) of overall respondents had no knowledge or experience of the informal justice system. Further, forty-four percent (44%) of respondents were unsure of their knowledge or experience of the informal justice system.
It turned out that eighty-four percent (84%) of the respondents that had knowledge or experience of the informal justice system had ample understanding of their processes and proceedings. Overall, only sixteen percent (16%) of the respondents who had knowledge or experience of the informal justice system did not understand the processes and proceedings.
Majority of the respondents rated the informal system as very fast and moderately fair and professional in their processes and proceedings. They also rated it as high to moderately independent and transparent.
Preferred Avenue for Redress of Grievances
Overall, twenty-eight percent (28%) of the respondents would prefer going to court to have their disputes settled. The reasons given for the choice are varied. Majority of the respondents were of the view that the courts are the final arbiters of disputes.
Also, twenty-five percent (25%) of respondents preferred going to the police station for the redress of their disputes because the job of the police is to settle disputes and they are effective at doing it. Further, twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents preferred to seek redress at the chiefs' palaces. The rest of the respondents preferred other avenues for settling their disputes.
Page 11 of 195
Finally, majority of the respondents stated that their preference of an avenue for redress will depend largely on the nature of the dispute.
Findings on Public Attitudes to the Formal Justice System
A high percentage of eighty-six percent (86%) out of a total of three hundred and fifty percent (350) respondents stated that their decision to use or recommend the use of the formal justice system will be greatly influenced by the factor of cost. Similarly, out of a total three hundred and twenty-five (325) of respondents, about two hundred and twenty-eight (228) stated that the delays associated with proceedings in the formal justice system is a major barrier to the use or recommended use of the system. Other factors such as procedural technicalities of the processes and proceedings and availability of the formal justice structures were also mentioned as barriers to using or recommending the use of the system.
Findings on Public Attitudes to the Informal Justice System
On the issue of which factors would affect respondents' use or recommendation for use of the informal justice delivery system, a total of 116 respondents out of two hundred and one (201) stated that the availability of informal justice will be a key factor in their use or recommended use of the system. Similarly, 96 respondents out of a total of one hundred and fifty-seven (157) stated that cost will be a factor that would affect their use or recommended use of the informal justice system. Interestingly, a total of one hundred and twenty-seven (127) out one hundred and ninety-three (193) respondents stated that procedural technicalities would prevent them from using or recommending the use of the informal justice system.
Findings on Public Levels of Knowledge on Human Rights
Overall, ninety-two percent (92%)of respondents were aware of their human rights. These respondents understood human rights as “rights accruing to them by virtue of their being human”. Only eight percent (8%) of respondents had no knowledge of human rights.
Page 12 of 195
Also, eighty-five percent (85%) of the overall respondents have not experienced any violation of their rights in the last two years. However, fifteen percent (15%) of respondents stated that they have experienced some human rights violations in the past two years.
Further, out of the fifteen percent (15%) respondents who have experienced some form of human rights violations, only twenty-six percent (26%) of the respondents reported the incident to some authority. Seventy four percent (74%) of the respondents chose not to report the violation to any authority.
Findings on Gender and Access to Justice
On the question of gender as a barrier to accessing the justice system, eighty-six percent (86%) of respondents were of the view that gender is not a barrier. However, fourteen percent (14%) believed that a person’s gender may be a barrier to accessing justice.
Findings on Judicial Independence
Majority of sixty-six percent (66%) of respondents answered that the judiciary is independent. However, a significant minority of thirty-four percent (34%) were of the view that the judiciary is not independent.
Justice Sector Corruption
On the question of justice sector corruption, ninety percent (90%) of respondents who had knowledge or experience of the formal justice sector perceived the judiciary as corrupt. Out of the ninety percent (90%), about seventy percent (70%) of the respondents had made unofficial payments (bribes) to officials in the justice sector for services rendered.
On the percentage spread of corruption among justice sector institutions, thirty-two percent (32%) of respondents with knowledge or experience of the formal justice sector stated that they had made unofficial payments to Police Officers. Similarly, twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents stated that they had made unofficial payments to judicial officers. Further, twenty-three percent (23%) of respondents had made unofficial payments to Prosecutors. Finally, fifteen percent (15%) of respondents stated that they had made unofficial payments to Prison Service officials.
Page 13 of 195
Reform Proposals from Respondents
Reform proposals from survey respondents were all aimed at improving access to and quality of justice delivery in the formal and informal justice systems.
With respect to the formal justice sector, respondents proposed the following to improve access:
Citizens should be educated on the formal justice system;
Steps should be taken to reduce the cost associated with litigation;
Measures must be put in place to improve the efficiency of the processes and proceedings of the formal justice system; and
Mechanisms aimed at reducing corruption and improving the level of transparency in their processes and proceedings must be implemented.
Respondents proposed the following reforms to improve the quality of justice delivery in the formal sector:
Mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that ethical and moral standards are upheld by officials in the formal justice systems;
Punish corrupt officials;
Measures to improve the duration of trials by reducing delay must be implemented; and
Improvement in the conditions of service of the officials in the formal justice sector.
Furthermore, in relation to improving access to the informal justice system, respondents proposed the following:
Education of citizens on the existence of the informal justice system, as well as the customs and traditions attendant to them;
Institutionalizing the informal justice system as a recognized part of the justice delivery machinery; and
Page 14 of 195
Building of the capacities of chiefs to become fairer and more impartial arbiters and thereby introduce greater professionalism in the dispensation of justice in the informal justice system.
On the issue of improving the quality of justice delivery in the informal sector, a broad majority of respondents proposed reform measures that would reduce partiality in favour of the elderly, for example, associated with the dispensation of justice in the informal system.
Findings on Justice Sector Institutions
The institutional representatives who were interviewed listed a number of constraints they face. These included gaps in their mandate; problems with leadership; many outstanding activities; limited institutional, human, and financial resources; and limited coordination and duplication of roles by institutions in the sector.
They also made some general reform proposals for the sector. These aimed at improving access to and quality of justice delivery in the formal and informal sectors. They include educating citizens on the formal and informal justice systems; and removing or reducing cost, delay and corruption associated with the justice delivery system.
Action Plan
Stakeholders at the validation meeting of the draft report generated an Action Plan as a basis for reforming the justice sector. The Action Plan, which in a sense is a master strategic plan for the sector detail the following:
a. The specific challenges that are sought to be addressed. b. The list of institutions that are implicated in the reform effort. c. The way and manner the challenges will be addressed-reform activities. d. The sequencing of the reforms. e. The points of institutional interface, and therefore, of collaboration. f. Indicators for measuring progress or regress in the reform effort. g. A monitoring and evaluation framework.
The Action Plan seeks to set the framework for reforms in the justice sector. Organized along eight (8) specific thematic challenges, the Action Plan is in essence a master strategic plan for the sector. The specific thematic challenges are:
Page 15 of 195
a. Knowledge of the justice sector (including institutions) b. Cost of Accessing Justice c. User Friendliness of the justice sector structures, processes and procedures d. Timeliness of justice delivery e. Independence of the justice sector institutions and actors f. Integrity of the justice sector institutions and actors g. Building justice sector Institutional capacities
The conclusions in the Action Plan represent consensus reached by stakeholders at the validation meeting of the draft report. By extrapolation, the views expressed reflect of a national consensus between rights-bearers and duty-holders. Thus the Action Plan becomes a critical source of information for initiating reforms in the justice sector and should form the basis starting a coherent and coordinated approach to reforms in the justice sector.
Further, in implementing the Action Plan, deliberate efforts must be made to ensure that policy coherence is achieved for the sector and "dis-coordination" does not recur in implementation, by securing the buy-in to the Action Plan by the following critical actors such:
a. Policy Unit of the Office of the President; b. Monitoring and Evaluation Unit of the Office of the President; c. Delivery Unit/Mechanism of the Office of the President; d. Constitution Review Implementation Committee; e. Ministry of Justice/Attorney-General's Department; f. Cabinet; g. Parliament; h. Judicial Council; i. General Legal Council; j. Judicial Reforms, Project Development and Implementation Unit of the Judicial Service; k. ADR Unit of the Judicial Service; l. National House of Chiefs (including the Ascertainment of Customary Law Project of the House); and m. Development Partners.
Key Recommendations
The Key recommendations include the following:
1. Reforms must take into account the formal and informal justice sector duality and legal pluralism.
Page 16 of 195
2. Reforms must tackle justice sector institutions other than the courts.
3. Reforms must build the capacity of citizens on justice sector Issues through:
i. Education on justice sector institutions, their functions, ways of accessing effective justice from them, and their Interplay; and
ii. Education on gendered justice.
4. Reforms must generally improve the functioning of the justice sector by:
i. Ensuring transparency of justice institutions and their processes and proceedings (this implicates a level of knowledge of the institutions);
ii. Reducing the cost of accessing justice (including eliminating corruption);
iii. Improving the professionalism of the administrators of justice; and
iv. Speeding up the delivery of justice.
5. Reform must include greater and more robust institutionalization of ADR in the administration of justice.
6. Reforms must address the issue of resource allocation to justice sector institutions relative to their mandates.
7. Reform efforts must include conscious, systematic, and productive communication, collaboration and coordination between all justice sector institutions.
Conclusion
The 2012 Baseline Survey provides useful qualitative and quantitative data on the current public knowledge and experience of the formal and informal justice sectors in Ghana. The survey also provides information on the current institutional and legal gaps in the mandate of these institutions, and adequacy of resources allocated to these institutions. This final report contains broad recommendations for reforming the sector and an Action Plan.
While a broad range of the public knowledge and experiences were captured in this survey, there was no attempt to establish the underlying values the public hold regarding the various governance issues it covered. For example, what (common and competing) views they have about what is “just”, “fair”, or “corrupt”, for example, were not explicitly explored. While doing so may have gone beyond the boundaries of this particular survey, those planning future such undertakings may decide it useful to include them, as they are
Page 17 of 195 likely to have a direct impact on the kinds of judgments made about efforts and institutions, and thus inform policies devised to address felt needs.
Looking to the future, these findings and the Action Plan should provide useful basis for retooling policy and reform interventions in the justice sector.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Baseline Survey
The purpose of this baseline survey is to provide information on the current levels of knowledge, experience and attitudes of the public to the justice sector in Ghana. The survey also collated the views of respondents on challenges in the sector and how these may be remediated. As a complementary measure, in-depth interviews were conducted with key persons working in justice sector institutions on the adequacy of their various mandates, how well they are executing those mandates, where the shortfalls are, and where and how change needs to happen in those institutions, to better to serve the public. The hope is that the findings of the survey will form the basis for the creation of a single, coherent, cohesive, and coordinated set of proposals for reform in the justice sector of Ghana.
In more direct and specific terms, the baseline survey of the justice sector aims to:
i. Assess public knowledge and experience of the sector; ii. Assess public attitudes to the sector; iii. Assess public views on the challenges in the delivery of justice;
Page 18 of 195
iv. Assess public views on how the challenges in the delivery of justice may be addressed; v. Identify gaps in institutional mandates and institutional communication, coordination and cooperation in the sector; vi. Identify capacity deficits (institutional, human, financial) in the sector; vii. Make recommendations on how the challenges of the sector may be remediated; viii. Provide a basis for enhanced coherence in policy discussions, decision making, strategic planning and resource allocation in the sector; ix. Recommend indicators for measuring access to justice, particularly by the vulnerable, and including girls and women; and x. Recommend benchmarks for the monitoring and review of projects in the Justice Sector.
1.2 Background to the Baseline Survey
The Justice Sector in Ghana has been the subject of a plethora of reform efforts since independence in 1957. However, the most sustained wave of reforms has happened during the twenty-year operation of the 1992 Constitution. These reforms have varied in object and in scale, but their principal focus has been consistent; to remove the roadblocks and bottlenecks to real, impartial, accessible, cheap and timely justice; ensure that the justice sector is not a barrier to doing business in Ghana and generally facilitates the growth of the economy; and position justice sector institutions to support constitutional democratic governance and the rule of law in Ghana and in accordance with international best practice.
The key reform initiatives over the two decades have been the following:
Improvement of the physical infrastructure of the formal justice institutions, especially the courts of law;
i. Automation of courts;
ii. Establishment of specialized courts such as the Commercial Court, the Land Court, the Industrial/Labour Court, the Human Rights Court and the Juvenile Court;
iii. Review of the rules of court;
iv. Mainstreaming of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) into formal adjudication processes;
Page 19 of 195
v. A Justice for all Programme (involving holding court in detention centers to dispose of criminal cases quicker and cheaper);
vi. A Private Process Servers Scheme to make the service of court processes on parties to suits in court quicker and more efficient and effective; vii. Establishment of a banking system for the collection of court fees and revenue; viii. Establishment of a Public Complaints and Courts Inspectorate Unit; and
ix. Establishment of a Judicial Reforms, Project Development and Implementation Unit.
As is clear from their tenor, the reforms have targeted specific issues in the formal justice sector, with the courts as a primary focus. The shortfalls are clear. Other critical justice sector institutions have almost been completely sidelined in the reform agenda. These include institutions in the informal sector and institutions in the formal sector whose work feeds into and could directly facilitate court reforms. These latter institutions include the Law Reform Commission (LRC), the Council for Law Reporting (CLR) and the Legal Aid Board (LAB). Thus, the very intense interrelationships and the interlocking character of the challenges in the justice sector, and their implications for ameliorative interventions, have not been central to the content of the reform effort.
Flowing from the above, institutional development initiatives and interventions have tended to be ad hoc and not part of a coordinated roll-out from a strategically determined framework of programmes and activities. Thus, reform programmes and interventions remain uncoordinated and incoherent and the vision of governments, Development Partners (DPs) and attendant policy initiatives for the justice sector have been quite inconsistent, if not erratic.
The situation is further jaundiced by the fact that in sourcing support from DPs to undertake reforms, policy makers are faced with the challenge of formulating their reform proposals to either fit into those of DPs' support programmes or seek support for stand-alone assistance for reform projects that are not intelligently linked in anyway. Overall, there is general lack of synergy in the development and implementation of reform efforts in the justice sector. Such a tunneled approach to reforms in the sector is constricting the growth, development, effectiveness, and efficiency of the justice administration machinery.
Page 20 of 195
It is not surprising, therefore, that the justice sector continues to grapple with structural challenges. These challenges are evidenced in limited access to justice; lowering quality of justice; increasing cost of justice; staggering delays in the dispensation of justice; unbridled non-implementation of approved activities; and a serial duplication of efforts leading to a grave under-utilization of man-hours and other resources. The reform approach that has been adopted over the years can be said to be grossly suboptimal.
The Ministry of Justice and Attorney General’s Department (MoJ), with support from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is therefore undertaking this baseline survey as part of a broader process of a sector wide reform agenda, leading to the coordination and harmonization of reform initiatives in the justice sector. On the 13th of July 2012, the MoJ launched this 2012 Baseline Survey for the Justice Sector in Ghana at a stakeholders meeting.
1.3 Organization of this Report
This report is organized into six (6) parts. Each part is further broken down into a number of sections and sometimes sub-sections. Part one, which is the introductory part of this report contains the purpose of the baseline survey, the background to the survey and this section on how the report is organized.
Part two of the report explains the methodology employed in designing and executing the survey and in analyzing the data gathered.
Part three of the report presents the survey findings on public knowledge and experience and public attitudes to the justice sector. The analyses and interpretation of the findings are also captured in this section. The findings, which are grouped into findings on the formal justice sector and findings on the informal justice sector, include public views on the challenges of the sector and how these may be addressed.
In part four of the report the focus is on findings and reform proposals relating to specific justice sector institutions, gleaned mainly from the in-depth interviews with representatives of the institutions. This part also highlights the institutional inter-connectedness in the
Page 21 of 195 sector and the levels of inter-agency communication, collaboration and cooperation in the justice sector.
Part five of the report contains ‘Recommendations" and an "Action Plan". This part is premised on a deeper analyses of the findings, illustrating the context in which they arise and noting their implications for reform proposals. The learning from the literature audit and the qualitative data is particularly applied to test the integrity of the findings and their assumptions in order to ensure that reform proposals, indicators, and benchmarks for measuring progress on reforms that flow from those findings are more resolute. Thus, the proposals for reformation and the resulting Action Plan take their ethos from the findings, but go beyond those findings to draw from a wider pool of knowledge resources on the sector.
The final part of the report, part six, contains a bibliography and a set of appendices. The appendices contain the institutional matrix, the literature audit, the Action Plan, copies of the survey instrument, the in-depth interview guide, the list of justice sector personnel interviewed, the names of the research team, amongst others.
Page 22 of 195
2.0 METHODOLOGY
2.1 A Three-Part Methodology
A three-part methodology was used to execute the baseline survey. These are: a Literature Audit, Field Surveys, and Validation Meetings and Interactions.
2.1.1 Validation Meetings and Interactions A cross-section of key players in the justice sector including CSOs were engaged with during the survey. These stakeholder engagements and inputs were central to the methodology of the Baseline Survey. Two main key stakeholder engagements were undertaken during the survey. The initial stakeholder engagement was for the purpose of validating the proposed methodology and indicators for the survey. The methodology was proposed, discussed and improved at an inception validation meeting with stakeholders from the Justice Sector. Based on the input received from stakeholders at the meeting, and through email dialogue with some stakeholders, the methodology and the survey instruments were revised. Similarly, the findings, recommendations and action plan in this report were discussed at the second stakeholders' validation meeting. Participants at this meeting generated a draft action plan which highlights the key problems in the justice sector and proposed reforms sequencing, indicators and for monitoring the reforms.
These engagements largely ensured stakeholder ownership and commitment to future reforms based on the recommendations in this report.
2.1.2 Literature Audit The literature audit component of the methodology consists of an analysis of pertinent literature on the justice sector in Ghana and in similar jurisdictions. The literature audit was conducted along four broad themes of: Democracy, Rule of Law and the Justice Sector; Administration of Justice; Historical Reforms and Reform Proposals. The literature audit is similarly an appendix to this report.
2.1.3 Survey Instruments The development of the survey instrument and interview guide was a critical part of the Baseline Survey. From the literature audit, we isolated the key issues in the justice sector.
Page 23 of 195
These issues were then used to develop the instruments. The survey instrument consisted of a mix of open and close ended questions and was more quantitative in design. This design of the survey instrument enabled respondents to both make a set of choices and provide reasons for the choices made. On the other hand, the interview guide was totally qualitative in design. This enabled the key stakeholders interviewed, an unlimited breadth in answering the questions. The instruments are appendices to this report.
2.2 Field Work
The field work component of the survey was very carefully crafted and deployed in order to assure the integrity of the findings.
2.2.1 Training of Field Researchers A team of six (6) field researchers were recruited and trained to undertake the nationwide survey and in-depth interviews. From the 20th - 24th August 2012, the team received training on the purpose for the survey, interviewing skills, strategies in administering survey instruments on the field and specific training on understanding the survey instrument.
2.2.2 Mapping out the Country The country was roughly equally zoned into two – the northern and southern zones. This was to ensure the efficient maximization of the time, human and financial resources available. The field researchers were then divided into two teams of researchers. Each team was headed by a lawyer and the other team members were law students. The cultural and linguistic diversity of the country, and the related capacities of the research team, were taken into account in team composition.
2.2.3 Sampling Design
a. Stratification The stratification of the frame for the survey was based on two factors: i. Administrative regions; and ii. Locality of residence.
The broad ecological zones, (coastal, forest and savannah) are implicit in the stratification. The first level of stratification corresponded to the ten administrative regions. Each administrative region was further stratified into urban, peri-urban and rural localities of
Page 24 of 195 residence. The sampling was then conducted independently within each stratum. The stratification ensured that the sample was well spread out among the relevant sub-groups (e.g.; region, urban/rural/peri urban, ecological zone etc). Since sampling was carried out separately within each stratum, it ensured that there were sufficient sampling units in each sub-group to allow meaningful analyses. It also reduced the sampling error, since the sampling error depends on the variance within the strata.
b. Sample Size and Allocation The number and allocation of the sample for the survey depended not only on the type of estimates to be obtained and the corresponding precision required but also on budgetary and operational constraints.
In determining the sample size for the survey, there was the need to manage the sampling and non-sampling errors. An increase in the sample size had the desired effect of reducing the sampling errors. However, the non-sampling errors tend to rise with increases in the sample size. Thus, for purposes of quality control and assurance of the field operations, coupled with the time limitations for the survey, there was the need to opt for a sample size that would be operationally manageable.
After careful consideration of options and also based on hindsight, time and resources available, a sample size of one thousand (1000) was deemed adequate for the survey. This ensured that there were sufficient sampling units available for meaningful analyses and inferences based on the national population figures, within a margin of error of plus or minus three (3) percent, with a confidence interval of ninety-five percent (95%)
Proportional allocation based on each region’s share of the national population was used in the determination of the sampling rates in each stratum. However, the three northern regions were slightly over sampled.
Further, lots were drawn to pre-determine the urban, peri-urban and rural stratification of the settings for the survey. The Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assembly (MMDA) demarcations were used as a basis for drawing the lots. Metropolises in every region formed the base for the determining the urban setting. Similarly, Municipalities and Districts formed the base for the peri-urban and rural settings respectively. Where there were no Metropolises in a region, the Municipalities formed the base for the urban and peri-urban settings.
Page 25 of 195
The field researchers were given the liberty to determine the particular towns to visit in the urban, peri-urban or rural localities. A list containing the research sites is appendixed to this report.
2.2.4 On the Field The teams were deployed in late August, September and early October. The field survey and the in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted simultaneously. The team leaders and the other senior researcher, also a lawyer, were responsible for the in-depth interviews with justice sector personnel. The law students concentrated on the field survey. The in- depth interviews were conducted with personnel in Traditional Authority; the National House of Chiefs (NHC); the Ascertainment of Customary Law Project (ACL) of the NHC; the judiciary; the judicial service; the Police; the Prisons; the Attorney-General's Department; the Economic and Organized Crime Office (EOCO); the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ); the Legal Aid Board (LAB); the Law Reform Commission (LRC); the Council for Law Reporting (CLR); the Land Administration Project (LAP) of the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources; the National Commission on Civic Education (NCCE); Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) working on the justice sector; and many others. The complete list of institutions interviewed is an appendix to this report.
2.2.5 Field Challenges and Remediation
a. Survey areas Since the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies were used in drawing lots for research sites, the teams encountered the challenge of deciding on which particular town to visit. As a solution, the teams were directed to randomly choose the particular towns to visit. This was meant to ensure that the survey sites were not restricted to the Metropolitan, Municipal and District capitals.
b. Questionnaires The number of questions in the survey instrument, (Sixty - Seven (67) questions), was also a major challenge. This accounted for the slight shortfall in the total number of questionnaires administered from the target of one thousand (1000). The strict timelines and limited resources of the project made it impracticable to extend the days for the field work in order to replace the questionnaires that were incomplete and therefore unusable. The teams were encouraged to strive to administer as close to 1000 questionnaires as possible and managed to fully administer nine hundred and forty-six (946).
Page 26 of 195
c. Logistics Inter- and Intra-regional transportation were major challenges for the teams. The teams had to use public transportation as the main means of commuting and lost a lot of time in the process. The northern zone team in particular had to use innovative means of commuting between their main field research station and remote areas. In some cases they rented motorcycles for the purpose. In other cases they had to temporarily relocate to the remote area until they had completed the target number of questionnaires for the area.
2.3 Data Coding and Analysis
In the main, quantitative data analyses techniques were used in coding and interpreting the data gathered from the survey. On the other hand, qualitative techniques were used in analyzing the responses from the in-depth interviews.
The Predictive Analytical Software (PASW) was the platform used in capturing the quantitative data. After the complete data was captured, frequencies were run for the generation of descriptive statistics. For each question or variable in the survey instrument, the overall percentages, averages, modes and ranges (where applicable) are presented in tables and charts. An appendix to this report shows the complete list of categorized responses to the open-ended questions in the survey instrument.
The qualitative responses, gathered from the in-depth interviews, were analyzed using the Nvivo 9 data software platform. Each response was grouped into a category with similar responses, counted, and the categories were prioritized based upon frequency of mention. The most often mentioned responses to open-ended questions are presented in a table format, similar to the close-ended type questions.
In general, open-ended questions elicited the strongest and most important responses of the survey. In comparison to the close-ended questions, the open-ended questions had a relatively wide range of detailed responses and gave the respondents an opportunity to express their opinions on important issues pertaining to the justice sector.
Page 27 of 195
3.0 SURVEY FINDINGS
3.1 Demographic Characteristics
Overall, nine hundred and forty-six) (946) respondents were fully interviewed for the survey. An additional fifty-five (55) interviews were conducted using the in-depth interview guide.
The presentation of the demographic data in this report serves two key purposes. First, it describes the sample, indicating the main characteristics of the sample measured during the survey. Second, it highlights the common characteristics of the sample that will be employed in analyzing findings in the subsequent sections of this report.
The key demographics measured across the survey sample include, Age, Gender, Educational Background and Occupation of the respondents. Table “A” presents the age and gender profiles of the respondents. From the data, sixty-nine point three percent (69.3%) of the total number of respondents were within the age bracket of 18-35 years. Whereas (one point six percent (1.6%) of the total number of respondents were 65 years and above. Similarly, sixty-eight point four percent (68.4%) of the total numbers of respondents were male whilst thirty-one point six percent (31.6%) of the total number of respondents were female.
Table A: Age and Gender Profile of Respondents
Background Characteristics Number Percentage Age group (years) 18-25 324 34.2 26-35 332 35.1 36-45 124 13.1 46-55 63 6.7 56-65 37 3.9 Above 65 15 1.6
Gender Male 647 68.4 Female 299 31.6
Fig “A” below presents the educational background of the respondents. Overall, forty-eight percent (48%) of the respondents have had tertiary education. On the other hand, twenty- three point forty-six percent (23.46%) of the respondents have had some form of basic
Page 28 of 195 education, with eighteen point six (18.6%) of respondents having secondary education. About eight percent (8%) of the respondents had no formal educational backgrounds.
Fig “B” also shows the breakdown of the occupation of the respondents. About 28% were civil servants, while thirty-three percent (33%) were self employed. The percentage of respondents who were students stood at thrity-five percent (35%). Respondents who were farmers made up four percent (4%) of the overall sample size.
Figure A: Educational Background of Respondents
Figure B: Occupation of Respondents
Page 29 of 195
3.2 Findings on Public Knowledge on, Experiences with, and Attitudes to the Justice Sector
One of the cardinal objectives of this baseline survey is to provide data on the current levels of knowledge and experience of Ghanaians on