This archive report was first published on 2 December 2019.
Published on December 2, 2019, the Task Force on Alternative Justice Systems has been examining the legal, policy, and institutional framework for the furtherance of the Judiciary's constitutional mandate under Article 159(2)(c).
Established in 2015 by then Chief Justice Dr. Willy Mutunga, the team of 15 men and women has reviewed and engaged with mechanisms that deal not only with redress of disputes but also those that explore and enable quests for everyday justice.
According to Dr. Akoth, vice-chairman of the Judiciary Task Force on Traditional, Informal, and other Mechanisms for Dispute Resolution in Kenya, the Constitution desires intelligibility between the courts and non-state mechanisms.
The task force has identified four major categories of mechanisms that are manifested in Kenya and similar jurisdictions. These include autonomous AJS institutions, autonomous AJS mechanisms annexed by third-party institutions, court-annexed ones, and regulated ones.
Autonomous AJS institutions are processes and mechanisms run entirely by the community, where justice questions and disputes are resolved according to the laws, rules, and practices that govern communities.
Autonomous AJS mechanisms annexed by third-party institutions involve the use of contextual or cultural norms by third parties to mediate access to justice or in resolving disputes.
Court-annexed AJS mechanisms work through a referral system between the court, court users committees, the AJS processes, and other stakeholders such as the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP), the Probation Office, and Children's Office.
Regulated AJS mechanisms involve practices where AJS mechanisms are created, regulated, and practised entirely or partially by state-based law or statute.
Examples of regulated AJS mechanisms include traditional courts incorporated in the court system as part of the judicial mechanism or local government, found in South Sudan, South Africa, and Botswana.
