The Gambian judiciary has been paying attention to recent Afrobarometer reports.
We are forced to address the findings presented in the report. This was reviewed with disappointment, disappointment and considerable disagreement. While we recognize the importance of public feedback in strengthening the system, we feel that in our view it is necessary to provide an explanation of some aspects of the report, which presents imbalances and occasionally misleading photographs of justice’s role, performance and challenges. It should be emphasized that the judiciary covers only the courts and not other agencies within the judicial division. But far too often, the report denies the judiciary for issues outside its liability. Because of what appears to be a fundamental misconception of the role and responsibility of justice.
Lack of consultation and institutional misconceptions
It is unfortunate that the judicial system was not consulted during the preparation of this report. A more comprehensive and consultative approach provided an important context and avoided misrepresentation primarily about institutional obligations. For example, the judicial system reflects a fundamental misconception. This responsibility rests on the prosecutor’s agency, not the judiciary.
National confidence and empirical tendencies
The report suggests that less than half of citizens (44%) are confident that ordinary people can get justice in court. Such perceptions are noteworthy, but they should be interpreted along with objective indicators. The consistent increase in court applications ranges from 25% to 30% per year, and is strong empirical evidence that citizens continue to rely on the judiciary to resolve conflicts. If confidence in the court is truly diminished, then a decrease is expected to correspond to case submission rather than a significant increase.
It is also important to note that perceptions are often shaped by socioeconomic realities, media narratives, and limited personal interactions with court processes. Such perceptions should inform reforms, but they should not be seen as a critical measure of institutional performance.
Access to legal advice and affordable prices
Only 34% of respondents feel they have access to legal advice, while 31% believe they can afford to face legal issues, reflecting the structural challenges within the broader judicial ecosystem. However, these concerns do not indicate a failure of the judiciary itself. Legal aid provisions, affordable prices and public education are the responsibility of other government agencies and civil society actors.
The judiciary has consistently advocated for the expansion of legal aid services and continues to support efforts aimed at increasing access to the judiciary. In particular, alternative conflict resolution (ADR) mechanisms have been strengthened as more accessible and cost-effective options for resolving conflicts. This is a critical development, unfortunately, that the report overlooks.
The promotion of friendly out-of-court settlements in civil cases is one of the eight purposes of the Judicial Strategic Plan to ensure that only issues that require lawsuits to be filed before the court are brought. It’s very strange to say the least, but the success of such policies is now used as evidence of distrust in the judiciary.
Legal assistance services recognition
The report notes that only 10% of respondents are aware of the community’s legal aid services. This indicates the need for improved outreach, but does not reflect judicial performance. Recognition and sensitization initiatives belong to the duties of the Legal Aid Committee, Governmental Organizations and Civil Society Organizations, not the judicial system.
Using informal conflict resolution mechanisms
The observation that only 20% of citizens rely on the court for legal issues must be seen in context as preferring police, traditional leaders, or families. Traditional and community-based conflict resolution methods continue to play a key role in many communities. This is essentially not a sign of judicial distrust, but a reflection of cultural norms and legal pluralism.
Recognizing this, the judiciary has integrated the Cadi courts, strengthened the ADR framework, and ensured that judicial delivery is culturally responsive and inclusive.
Trust in the judiciary
The claim that less than half (46%) trusts “somewhat” or “more” should be appreciated within the broader landscape of public trust in the institution. Trust is multifaceted and evolving. We take this kind of feedback seriously, but we also need to compare and consider positive indicators such as increased case volume, strengthening case clearance rates, and institutional reforms.
The judiciary continues to work to enhance professionalism, transparency and efficiency at all levels of the court system.
Recognition of corruption
The suggestion that 43% of citizens believe most or all judges and magistrates are corrupt is one of the most troublesome claims in the report. Allegations of corruption must be approached with severity and handled via appropriate accountability mechanisms. However, broad generalizations not supported by concrete evidence risk unfairly undermining the integrity of justice and other civil servants who continue to impose dedication under difficult conditions.
The judiciary has institutional mechanisms to address fraud and welcomes constructive evidence-based criticism. However, clearing up the accusations will only erode public confidence without providing any evidence or solution. The judiciary was not hesitant to take action against the official.
Equal treatment and accountability
The report suggests that 56% of respondents believe that people are treated unequally under the law, and 59% believe that civil servants are often not punished. Such perceptions reflect broader social concerns, but should not be attributed to justice alone. Courts are required to award based on the status and influence of an individual, based on law and evidence. The court will not say who will be taken before that.
Recent recent, well-dealed decisions, handled fairly and professionally, demonstrate an increased independence of the judicial system and a commitment to equal justice under the law.
Judicial independence and influence
Almost half (48%) believe that the claim that judges believe that they will determine cases based on influence rather than law is serious. Judicial independence is a fundamental principle that the judiciary continues to support even politically sensitive issues. Structural protection and professional codes of conduct ensure fairness in decision-making. Such claims ignore the substantial progress made in strengthening the rule of law, undermining confidence in democratic institutions without evidence.
Public support for the death penalty
The finding that 80% of respondents support the death penalty is not related to judicial performance. Judgment policy is governed by law and legislative authorities. The role of justice is to interpret and apply the law, rather than creating it. Therefore, it is misguided to include this statistic in reports assessing judicial trust.
Judicial workloads and capacity
In 2024 alone, the court managed a caseload of approximately 13,000 issues, including over 6,678 new filings. This was an increase of 25% compared to the previous year. Over 5,500 cases have been successfully discarded, reflecting significant advances in CAPICITY and efficiency. These figures highlight the dedication and resilience of judicial officers, that is, from Cadiz and Magistrates to High Court judges – they continue to operate under considerable pressure.
Sign up for the AllAfrica newsletter for free
Get the latest African news
success!
Almost finished…
You need to check your email address.
Follow the instructions in the email you sent to complete the process.
error!
There was a problem processing the submission. Please try again later.
On average, each judicial officer manages more than 150 cases, far more than 50 reasonable cases per judge. It often outweighs more cases in certain jurisdictions, especially in areas like the West Coast, where complex civil lawsuits are surged. Despite limited resources and sustained budgetary constraints, the judiciary remains immobilized in serving the public.
Progress and reform
The judiciary has embarked on meaningful reforms, not static. Important outcomes include the appointment of additional Gambian judges, the deployment of permanent judges to the states, and the development of strategic plans. Digitalizing court records and introducing case management systems in line with international best practices are part of this ongoing transformation. We create a specialized court to increase our rules, capacity building for our staff, and efficiency.
Conclusion: Shared responsibility
The Afrobarometer report is valuable to encourage debate, but overlooks important institutional progress and sometimes attributes systemic issues outside the rule of justice to the court. Enhanced judicial systems require collective efforts from all stakeholders, government, civil society, legal experts and the public.
We welcome engagement, dialogue and criticism, but such assessments encourage fair, accurate and contextual information. The judiciary remains committed to the indomitable pursuit of transparency, accountability and justice.
Let us work together to strengthen our trust in our institutions – not through misguided or inaccurate narratives, but through informed collaboration and sharing responsibility.
