RFI_Efficient and Effective Justice Program.pdf

NOTICE TYPE Request for Information (RFI)

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI)

NUMBER

2021/C

PROJECT TITLE Efficient and Effective Justice Program

RELEASE DATE December 17, 2020

RESPONSE SUBMISSION DEADLINE January 7, 2021. 0900am Sri Lanka Time

Pursuant to FAR 52.215-3 Request for Information (Oct. 1997), the United States Government, represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Sri Lanka Mission (USAID/Sri Lanka), is publishing the Request for Information (RFI) to obtain information and comments from all interested public and private parties on proposed Efficient and Effective Justice Program activity in Sri Lanka. The overall estimated cost of this procurement is approximately $16 million dollars, covering a performance period of five (5) years from the date of award. A draft of the requirement is stated under Attachment 1 of this RFI.

Through this Request for Information (RFI) USAID/Sri Lanka seeks to obtain comments, suggestions on the attached Statement of Work (SOW) on Efficient and Effective Justice Program activity in Sri Lanka.

The information contained within this RFI is intended solely as a thought-piece; ideas may change significantly during the Mission’s remaining stages of the program design, consultation, and approval process. USAID/Sri Lanka is not requesting proposals at this time. The Mission reserves the right to incorporate, or not to incorporate, any all comments into the RFP, or to not issue an RFP.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ONLY. It is not a Request for Proposal, a Request for Quotation, a Request for Application, an Invitation for Bids, a Solicitation, or an indication USAID will contract for the items contained in this RFI. This RFI is an attempt to reach out in an effort to determine industry capabilities and interest, and will be treated as information only. In accordance with FAR 15.201(e), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Responses to this RFI are strictly voluntary and USAID will not pay respondents for information provided in response to this RFI. Responses to this RFI may not be returned and respondents may not be notified of the result of the review. If a Solicitation is issued, it will be announced on www.beta.SAM.gov website at a later date, and all interested parties must respond to that Solicitation announcement separately from any response to this announcement. This RFI does not restrict the Government's acquisition approach on a future Solicitation.

Instructions for Submitting Responses/Comments Responses (comments, suggestions, and enhancements) to this RFI should be submitted on or before the deadline stated above. Submission via email is required. Respondents may also include self/organization information including past experiences working in this subject area, experience working with other stakeholders, including implementing partners on the ground or host country government officials, or capacity information.

Submit responses to this RFI via email to Mr. Harsha Kaluarachchi, Acquisition and Assistance Specialist at srilankaprocurement@usaid.gov and CC to hkaluarachchi@usaid.gov with the subject title “Request for Information (RFI): Efficient and Effective Justice Program”, no later than the date/time stated above.

You will only receive an electronic confirmation acknowledging receipt of your response, but will not receive individualized feedback on any suggestions.

This RFI can be viewed and downloaded from the internet at www.beta.SAM.gov.

Thank you for your interest in USAID/Sri Lanka activities, and we look forward to your comments.

Sincerely, Marcus A. Johnson, Jr.

Supervisory Contracting Officer.

ATTACHEMENT 1: STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Background

The history of the judicial and legal systems of Sri Lanka dates back to the periods of ancient kingdoms, prior to colonial rule over the country. The current legal system is a mix of traditional personal laws, Roman Dutch law, English law, and the norms of international treaties that Sri Lanka has ratified and domestically applied. The structure of the judiciary is mandated by the Constitution of Sri Lanka.

According to Article 4(c) of the Constitution “the judicial power of the people shall be exercised by parliament through courts, tribunals and institutions created and established, or recognized, by the constitution, or created and established by law, except in regard to matters relating to the privileges, immunities and powers of parliament and of its members, wherein the judicial power of the people may be exercised directly by parliament according to law:”.1 Further, more details on the structure of courts and judicial appointments are provided in the chapter XV of the constitution.

The judiciary consists of a hierarchical court system. Accordingly, the Supreme Court is the highest court in the country established by the constitution. The Supreme Court has the final and conclusive civil and criminal appellate jurisdiction on appeals from the Court of Appeal or any court of first instance, constitutional jurisdiction, jurisdiction in protection of fundamental rights, and jurisdiction in respect of to breaches of parliamentary privileges. The Court of Appeal, which is the next highest court, is vested with appellate jurisdiction, jurisdiction for corrections, writ jurisdiction, and contempt of court. The High Court of Sri Lanka exercises jurisdiction to hear, try, and determine all prosecutions on indictments. It has criminal and admiralty jurisdiction and jurisdiction in regard to offences committed by any person on board or in relation to any ship or any aircraft of whatever category registered in Sri Lanka. Provincial High Courts, established under the 13th amendment to the constitution, have other jurisdictions, including writ jurisdiction. The Commercial High Court, located in Colombo, has jurisdiction over commercial matters above a certain financial threshold and on intellectual property. District Courts have original jurisdiction in all civil revenue, matrimonial, trust, insolvency, and testamentary matters within the district. The Magistrate Court, which exercises jurisdiction over criminal cases filed under the Penal Code, is the lowest in the hierarchy. It has the authority to conduct post-mortem examinations, to issue warrants of judicial orders to arrest and produce suspected persons, to issue search warrants, and to conduct non-summary proceedings before indictment. In addition to these, a number of other institutions and tribunals, such as the Labor Tribunals and Qazi Courts, have jurisdictions in specific areas.

The Judicial Services Commission (JSC) established by the constitution consists of the three senior-most judges in the Supreme Court and is presided over by the Chief Justice. The JSC is responsible for appointment, transfer, dismissal, and disciplinary control of judicial officers of the first instance courts (and transfers of judges in the High Courts) and scheduled public officers such as court registrars, among other tasks. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for some parts of the administration and maintenance of infrastructure of court houses.

The justice system in Sri Lanka enjoys well-qualified and expert professionals who serve as judges -particularly in superior courts - and counsels in both official and unofficial bars. Institutions such as the

1 Article 4 (c) The Constitution of Sri Lanka

Attorney General’s Department, Legal Draftsman’s Department, Department of Government Analyst, Sri Lanka Police, and Department of Prisons are also integral parts of the justice system. Further, the Sri Lanka Judges Institute (SLJI) and the Non-Judicial Officers Training Institute (NJOTI) have been established to improve the capacities of judicial and non-judicial officers in the system.

Problem Statement

Despite the rich blend of legal and judicial traditions, highly educated and experienced professionals, and a good number of institutions that are responsible for different aspects of the justice system, administration of justice in Sri Lanka is challenged by several issues. The most significant issue that affects the development of the country, as well as the lives of the justice seekers, is excessive delay in the delivery of justice. Adjudication processes of both civil and criminal cases are extremely slow, and the institutions responsible for different stages of administration of justice face a huge backlog. An analysis of 350 cases pending in 23 Sri Lankan courts found that cases averaged 23.13 postponements, while the average duration of each postponement was 83.85 days2. This situation is reflected in Sri Lanka’s ranking in global assessments. In the World Rule of Law Index 2020, Sri Lanka, ranked 68/128, declining by 2 position from the previous year, and sub-factor 7.5 (No unreasonable delay in civil justice) scored as low as 0.283. Such delays not only affect public life, but also the economic development of the country. In the global Ease of Doing Business Index, Sri Lanka ranked 99/190 in 2020, and its Contract Enforcement ranking was the lowest (164/190) out of all the sub-factors. Further, as per the regional ranking under this indicator, Sri Lanka is placed at six out of eight South Asian countries, just above Bangladesh and Afghanistan. Sri Lanka’s court system is estimated to take 1,318 days to enforce a contract4. The huge backlog in courts is both a cause and the result of such delays. According to the Ministry of Justice statistics, 775,620 cases were pending in courts by the end of 20185.

An inadequate number of judges is considered by many as one of the main causes of the delay in adjudication. However, it is not necessarily the number of judges, but how judges spend their time. The burden of administration of court offices placed on the shoulders of judges is often underestimated. In a system in which delegation and distribution of responsibilities are not practiced properly, judges spend a considerable amount of time on court administration, leaving them with limited time for specific tasks related to adjudication, such as judgement writing.

Poor case-flow management also contributes to delays in adjudication in Sri Lanka. The current, manual, case-processing system presents numerous issues, including safety and security of data and case files and corruption. However, lack of automation is not the only cause of the problem. Lack of time standards, frequent adjournments without a good cause, lack of regular reporting on the age and status of cases, and the misplacement of files and documents are some of the many shortcomings with the current system and practice. While the Government of Sri Lanka’s expressed commitment to digitalize the system is a positive turn, the understanding of its functions and impact seems to be low. Apparently, digitalization is

2 Millennium DPI Partners, Assessment of Case Flow Management and Court Administration in Sri Lanka: Analysis and Recommendations To Reduce Court Delay - October 2016 3 https://worldjusticeproject.org/our-work/research-and-data/wjp-rule-law-index-2020 - accessed 11.29.2020 4 https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/country/s/sri-lanka/LKA.pdf accessed on 11.28.2020 5 https://www.moj.gov.lk/web/images/pdf/other/Stat-2018-MOJ.pdf accessed on 11.20.2020 quickly and mistakenly embraced as the solution to all the problems related to delays. However, automation and the introduction of technology will only enhance efficiency and productivity if accompanied by improved policies and regulations on time standards, early and continuous court control of case progress, realistic calendar settings, etc. Commitment of the judiciary and collaboration of the lawyers and other judicial personnel are also essential pieces of an effective case management system. As highlighted in USAID’s ‘Practical Guidance for DRG Officers on Designing and Implementing Court Automation Projects, “The Golden Rule is that it is not technology that drives change, it is change that drives technology. Building a project scope with this in mind, instead of from a perspective of simply delivering technology is the first step in success.”6 Comparative international practice includes a variety of successes using traditional methods, as opposed to simply introducing new technologies, to improve case-flow management and reduce case delays.

Sri Lankan courts remain distant from the concepts of open and user-friendly system, due to poor infrastructure and lack of service orientation. The default mode of the justice system is to remain closed and distant from the public. This is often justified as a means of maintaining ‘judicial independence,’ but it comes at the expense of public trust, confidence, and accessibility. Finding the right balance between judicial independence and transparency and accountability has become more difficult, due to conservative attitudes of the actors in the system. While the courts are physically open, quite often, even litigants find it difficult to understand the status of their cases. Poor communication and information sharing, combined with the lack of feedback mechanisms, affect transparency and accountability, which are salient features of a well-functioning justice system. This state of affairs ultimately leads to a decline of public confidence in the judiciary.

The justice system in Sri Lanka is challenged by many other issues, as well. Legal education is the key to produce knowledgeable and skilled professionals. Enrolment in legal degree programs in state universities, as well as in Sri Lanka Law College is quite competitive. The limited intake for the law faculties is justified by the need for intensive teaching and learning among other reasons. However, the quality of legal education in law schools is often criticized due to outdated curricula and a lack of focus on skills development and professional standards.

In addition, continuing legal education is neither mandatory, nor standardized. While the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) and other lawyers’ associations organize seminars, conferences, and ad hoc training programs, they do not follow standardized curricula or accepted training methodologies, resulting in the quality of offerings being largely dependent upon the abilities of the trainer. Further, professional development and training are almost exclusively focused on transferring knowledge of different subject areas, instead developing skills needed by lawyers. Lack of opportunities for exposure and acquiring new knowledge and skills limits the development of legal professionals, who require ongoing opportunities to upgrade their expertise and skills necessary to function effectively in the fast-changing socio-economic environment in the country

Notwithstanding the availability of experts in the system, shortcomings in human resources, in terms of both adequacy and technical capacity, affects the desired performance of all justice institutions, including

6 https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1866/USAID-CAP-Guide-FINAL.pdf accessed on 2.08.2020 the judiciary. Though there are institutions focused on improving knowledge and professional capacities of judicial and non-judicial officers, their performance is limited to conducting ad hoc trainings. The present induction training for newly recruited judges and the intermittent, in-service training for judges by the Sri Lanka Judges Institute (SLJI) do not adequately focus on improving needed skills and values.

Moreover, the SLJI’s training courses are limited to judges of the first instance courts. However, the judicial cadre of the superior courts consist of judges who are directly appointed from the official and unofficial bars, as well as the judges promoted from the lower courts. The first two categories have expertise in the law, but lack experience as judges. Hence, their judicial conduct and the quality of their decisions depend exclusively upon their personal capacities. In the absence of a formal continuing judicial education program or any other mechanism of learning, the nuances of the role and related responsibilities-particularly in a world that does not expect ‘mistakes’ from a senior judge- is a huge, often unrecognized, challenge.

Human Resource management in the justice system also is problematic. Professional qualifications and capacities of non-judicial personnel are notably weak. Some categories of non-judicial personnel receive hardly any training or professional development opportunities during their entire career. This negatively affects competencies, motivation, commitment and ethical standards of personnel that, in turn, can have a deleterious effect on judicial independence, efficiency, and the public confidence in the judiciary.

Gender equality and equity in the justice system is a significant issue, though it is not much recognized in public. While a significant majority of law students are female, the number of women that enter into active practice upon graduation is considerably low. Gender-based discrimination and harassment of different scales is evident across the system. However, due to fear of stigma and secondary victimization, many victims of such discrimination suffer silently. As this issue is often overlooked in fora that discuss the problems in the justice system, no serious, practical remedies are considered by any professional body or authority.

Use of modern technology is also extremely rare. Almost every aspect of judicial processes is paper-based and manually handled. While the government is keen to automate, the knowledge of its application and the understanding of the exact benefits of automation are not common, even in the highest circles of decision-making. It is important to lay the groundwork for digitalization first, by introducing policies and correcting flaws of the manual system.

According to the 20th amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka, passed in October 2020, “The Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal and every other Judge of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal shall be appointed by the President “7. Both local and international actors, including professional associations, have expressed serious concerns about the impact of this provision on the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.8 Reform of the judicial selection and appointment processes, including

7 20th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka 8 Sri Lanka: newly adopted 20th Amendment to the Constitution is blow to the rule of law - https://www.icj.org/sri-lanka-newly-adopted-20th-amendment-to-the-constitution-is-blow-to-the-rule-of-law/ accessed 11.23.2020

Statement on The 20th Amendment to the Constitution of Sri Lanka https://www.commonwealthlawyers.com/statement/statement-on-the-20th-amendment-to-the-constitution-of-sri-lanka/ accessed on 11.23.2020 objective standards for eligibility in addition to performance, is warranted, as part of a comprehensive approach to justice system strengthening.

Opportunities

Despite concerns about potential political interventions in the judiciary, the current administration has identified the need to improve the justice system and undertaken preliminary initiatives. The 2019 manifesto of the current president included a chapter on ‘A righteous, disciplined and a law-abiding society’ in which the need to amend obsolete legal procedures, laws, and legal reforms to ensure that the country’s legal system matches well with international laws, improvement of infrastructure, and digitalization were included, among other measures. In August 2020, an eminent legal professional was appointed as the Minister of Justice, who consequently obtained cabinet approval to establish a project office within the Ministry of Justice to work on justice system reforms. This project office consists of five committees to address infrastructure development, digitalization, criminal law reforms, civil law reforms and commercial law reforms. The 20th amendment included a constitutional provision to increase the number of judges in the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. More importantly, the national budget for 2021 allocated RS. 20 billion for judicial and legal reforms,9 which is the largest allocation for the justice system in history of Sri Lanka. This allocation is to fund a three-year, intensive program of reforms covering the entire system.

The importance and efficacy of using modern technology in the justice system was highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Some courts took specific, small steps to use technologies such as video conferencing for hearing cases without bringing parties to the court houses. Though this remains at the very early stages of use, the benefits of remote, digital hearings pushed the system towards a potential paradigm shift towards greater application of technologies in the justice system.

Links to Mission and USG strategies

The Effective and Efficient Justice activity is aligned with the current Country Development Cooperative Strategy (CDCS) of USAID Sri Lanka. Accordingly, it falls within the area of DO 1: ‘strengthened democratic governance and social cohesion’, more specifically within the IR 1.2: ‘Strengthened key democratic government institutions.

Technical approach

Goal: Improved justice system that meets the needs of society and upholds the rule of law A well-functioning justice system is the key to protecting individual rights and ensuring peace in society.

It is vital for upholding universal principles and practices of rule of law. Further, an effective justice system is a precondition to improve livelihoods and economic growth, along with other aspects of development. An effective justice system enables a robust business environment by guaranteeing property rights, enforcing contracts and more quickly resolving disputes, among other assurances. Comprehensive and updated legal frameworks, independent institutions that interpret and apply the law fairly and

9 Rs. 20 b for justice and legal reforms http://www.ft.lk/front-page/Rs-20-b-for-justice-and-legal-reforms/44-709069

- accessed 11.23.2020 efficiently, and impartial and competent professionals that operate the system and deliver services are essential features of a well-functioning and effective justice system. In the current era of digitalization, a reform-minded justice system will explore maximum use of technology in all appropriate means, not only to improve the efficiency of regular functions and processes, but also to deal with unforeseen challenges, like the current COVID 19 pandemic, to ensure continuity of operations.

The Efficient and Effective Justice (EEJ) activity will support improvements to the justice system in Sri Lanka by introducing and strengthening the features of well-functioning and modern justice systems and strengthening the relevant institutions and actors to meet international standards for the rule of law and justice. The activity will realize this goal through the achievement of two objectives and seven sub-objectives, as elaborated below. Each of the objectives and sub-objectives are interrelated and require cross cutting interventions. For instance, interventions that support the adoption of modern technology, that advance law reforms, and that strengthen training and capacity building may be included under each sub-objective. Equally, advancing gender and social inclusion will be integrated in every component of the activity. This will go beyond implementing specific, isolated interventions such as seminars on gender sensitivity or interventions targeted at women’s empowerment. Every problem, approach, and intervention will be analyzed through a gender lens and appropriate action will be taken to integrate gender. For example, every CLE/CJE program will dedicate adequate time to discuss gender issues and considerations. Similarly, other important issues, such as sensitivity of the needs of differently abled persons, will be integrated in every component as appropriate.

Objective 1: Administration of Justice Strengthened

Strengthening administration of justice in Sri Lanka is a priority to advance the rule of law, protect individual rights, improve economic development, and sustain peace in the country. This activity will support the Government of Sri Lanka’s work to advance judicial reforms by increasing judicial efficiency, quality of services, and transparency and accountability in the administration of justice. The activity will assist to improve judicial administration policies and standard operating procedures, introduce and promote international best practices and tools to improve case and court management, as appropriate under each sub objective.

Sub Objective 1.1: Case management practices improved

As described above, the absence of a standardized case management system is a significant cause of case delays and backlog. Building on USAID’s current support to introduce case management systems in courts (model courts) identified by the Judicial Services Commission, the activity will introduce international best practices in case management practices and support the courts and other institutions and actors in their implementation. The activity will support the government, as well as the judiciary in their efforts to increase digitalization and automation, as necessary and appropriate.

Expected results

- Improved case management systems and related automation and digital tools for the administration of justice introduced;

- Judges and court staff utilize new case management systems and other tools for the administration of justice; and

- Courts hear and conclude cases without undue delay.

Illustrative activities

- Developing case flow management rules and procedures with the judiciary;

- Supporting backlog reduction and case clearance policies and practices;

- Supporting adoption and use of internationally accepted case management systems and tracking tools;

and

- Training judges and court staff in advanced case management processes and tools.

Sub Objective 1.2: Court management systems and tools improved

The term court management covers a vast area, including but not limited to the leadership of court and management, court resources (human, financial, material), court services, communications, and client satisfaction. Court management may be defined as ‘administration inside the court and outside the case.’

It directly affects the efficiency of adjudication, and the Sri Lankan justice system is a good example for how poor court management impacts adjudication and public trust in the system. Judges are burdened with administrative tasks that can be delegated to other non-judicial officers in courts. This consumes a considerable amount of their time that can be used to fulfil their judicial responsibilities such as judgment writing. Sri Lankan court offices often suffer from the unavailability of low-cost, but essential equipment to expedite their functions. There is no accepted mechanism or a standardized, uniform practice for identifying such needs and lobbying for provisions. Employing non-judicial professionals with management skills and delegating managerial responsibilities is essential in court management. Assigning non-judicial staff for maintaining facilities for court users, motivating them and positive supervision for ensuring efficiency are important.

Working closely with the Ministry of Justice and Judicial Services Commission, the activity will support development of standardized court management procedures and introduce internationally accepted tools for assessing progress. The activity will also assist with minor infrastructure development, as necessary and appropriate.

Expected Results:

- Court management committees are upgraded, trained, and exercise responsibilities to improve and assess court performance;

- Division of labor and responsibilities of non-judicial personnel practiced and measured appropriately;

and

- Strategies, policies, and procedures for managing court operations and providing quality services to the public developed and adopted.

Illustrative activities:

- Supporting the MOJ in appointing ‘Court Managers’ and improving their capacity;

- Introducing the International Framework for Court Excellence and supporting its adoption; and

- Training court managers and court management committees.

Sub Objective 1.3: Alternative Dispute Resolution promoted Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms is an effective way to reduce excessive caseloads that cause delay of adjudication and backlog. Sri Lanka has defined legal provisions for community mediation. However, this is minimum use of the concept of ADR. Though the Arbitration Act (No. 1, 1995) sets ground for arbitration, for multiple reasons, it is not popular. For instance, arbitrators approach their work as if they were judges, arbitrators have little control over arbitration processes, delays enforcing arbitration awards, lack of facilities, and a shortage of arbitrators with specialized knowledge, i.e. engineering, architecture, etc.

The activity will advocate and support for increased use and effectiveness of arbitration and civil and commercial mediation (beyond community mediation). The activity intends to support both government-and private-sector-led initiatives and work closely with the judiciary to support court annexed mediation programs.

Expected Results:

- Laws and policies to facilitate use of ADR strengthened;

- ADR processes integrated into the legal culture and courts;

- ADR included in law school curricular and continuing legal/judicial education’

- Competencies of ADR practitioners improved;

Illustrative activities

- Supporting necessary improvement of legal framework for arbitration and civil and commercial mediation;

- Training and certifying mediators/arbitrators;

- Raising awareness of commercial mediation;

- Initiating a court-annexed mediation program, in collaboration with the judiciary;

- Engaging private sector actors and institution to promote ADR practices;

Sub Objective 1.4: Public information and community engagement improved

This sub-objective will cover a wide spectrum of issues within the judiciary and other justice system institutions, ranging from basic information sharing in courthouses to engaging in broader public communication and outreach, and implementing user feedback mechanisms to improve institutional performance and user-friendly services. Better information sharing will increase transparency, which is an essential aspect of well-functioning justice systems and critical to heighten public confidence in the judiciary. Court users and justice seekers will benefit from basic signage, leaflets, and information kiosks, websites, and mobile messaging systems that provide court and case-related information (i.e-date, court room, etc.), case listings, and related news. Introducing regular reporting of statistics, judgements, circulars, legislation, periodical progress reports, and other public information also helps improve transparency and, in turn, mitigates negative perceptions. Periodical user satisfaction surveys and electronic mechanisms that measure satisfaction can produce valuable data, as well. These data can be cross-referenced with self-assessment results to measure performance. Such exercises can be used to take timely decisions and measures to improve individual and institutional performance as and when necessary.

Expected Results:

- Litigants have easy and direct access to case related information.

- Courts use modern technology and other user-friendly tools to share information and provide services.

- Justice institutions use modern platforms and improve coordination and communication practices;

- User feedback mechanisms are in place and used for performance assessments.

Illustrative activities:

- Supporting the development of tailor-made communication strategies;

- Developing user feedback mechanisms (software, etc.);

- Training information officers.

Objective 2: Qualifications and professionalism of justice sector actors strengthened

Competent individuals is key to the performance of the system. High-performing professionals are critical to a justice system, as they requires specialized knowledge and skills and positive attitudes to function effectively and deliver public services. In the case of the justice system, this includes ensuring a diverse cadres of professionals, from judges, registrars, lawyers, and administrators, to office assistants and clerical staff. High levels of professionalism and performance of each of these groups is vital for the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. Sri Lanka has room to improve its human resources in every justice institution and boost the professionalism of all individuals working in the sector. Their preparation, practice, and professional development should include measures that instill values and strengthen the sense of integrity, responsibility, and accountability. Similarly, gender sensitivity should be integrated in all professional and educational programs.

Sub Objective 2.1: Quality of legal education curricula, instruction, and learning improved

High quality legal education is fundamental for a well-functioning justice system. However, concern exists that legal education in Sri Lanka does not produce graduates with knowledge and skills required to fulfil the responsibilities of modern legal and judicial positions. This activity will support reform of the legal education system and prepare law school graduates to enter into the legal profession, empowering them with appropriate knowledge and skills, values, and a strong sense of ethics and professional responsibility. This will require reforming law school curricula to include subjects demanded by the rapidly changing social and economic environment of Sri Lanka and the world and modules to improve skills to deal with professional challenges and instill values and ethics. It is the conduct of professionals that creates an enabling and equitable environment for individuals of different gender identities and social backgrounds. As explained above, such an equitable environment does not prevail in the justice system in Sri Lanka. Therefore, legal education should integrate activities that provide practical instruction and experiences to increase sensitivity to gender and social inclusion in graduates. The activity will work with the Council of Legal Education and law faculties of the state universities under this component.

Expected results:

- Law schools adopt and follow improved curricula, based on standard legal education practices and tools;

- Policies and procedures for comprehensive quality assurance frameworks based on

- international standards and comparative best practices adopted and practiced by leading law

- schools;

- Law school administrators, faculty leadership, instructors, and students trained on operation of quality assurance framework; and

- Skills development programs and opportunities are available for law students.

Illustrative activities:

- Supporting law schools to revise curricula and develop new methods of legal education;

- Developing and implementing long-term programs designed to improve skills and ethical standards of law students; and

- Supporting Sri Lankan Law schools to localize and adopt international frameworks for quality assurance.

Sub Objective 2.2: Continuing education and expertise of judicial and legal professionals improved

The competence of judicial officers impacts judicial decision-making and, in turn, efficiency and public confidence of the system. Judicial officers should have updated knowledge about laws and regulations, but more importantly, have fearless, balanced personality, a positive self-image and strong sense of integrity and ethical standards to make impartial decisions. They also need to have a strong set of skills, such as analytical skills and judgement-writing skills. Such skills and traits of all judges, as well as integrity are fundamental to judicial independence. According to the Bangalore principles ‘A judge shall ensure that his or her conduct is above reproach in the view of a reasonable observer”10. Therefore, it is important to provide the judges at all levels with opportunities to develop necessary skills and strong sense of appropriate judicial conduct and integrity. It is also important to emphasize judicial practice with gender sensitivity in judicial education programs.

Continuing legal education is also equally important. Legal professionals in the private bar, as well as those employed in other institutions and organizations, should continue to enhance their knowledge and skills to deal with the requirements of a changing world and legal system. Such continuing education and lifetime learning will empower professionals with competence to serve in a variety of new fields, without being limited to the traditional practice of law.

It is important to integrate tools and mechanisms for performance measurement in Continuing Judicial Education and Continuing Legal Education programs as a means of assessing the outcome of such input.

The program will work closely with the Judicial Services Commission, Sri Lanka Judges Institute, Ministry of Justice, Bar Association of Sri Lanka and other professional associations. Both CJE and CLE can take different approaches not limited to mere training workshops. Support for both CJE and CLE can be built on USAID’s current work with SLJI, AGD and CLS as appropriate but will not be limited to that.

Expected Results:

- SLJI’s methodologies, core curriculum, and trainers strengthened and meet international standards;

10 Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct - https://www.unodc.org/documents/ji/training/bangaloreprinciples.pdf Accessed on 11.26.2020

- SLJI strengthened to provide high-quality, modern, professional development services to judicial personnel;

- The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct are adopted, and all judges trained on the new ethical standards;

- Access to quality, formal continuing legal education for practicing lawyers expanded;

- Mentorship opportunities for young lawyers established; and

- Judges have access to resources that are needed for self-development.

Illustrative activities

- Supporting development of a standardized judicial education plan;

- Supporting training for judges at all levels; and

- Facilitating exposure to the other jurisdictions and linking with international judges associations

Sub Objective 2.3: Professional development and skills of non-judicial personnel improved

A wide variety of positions, including court registrars, administrators, interpreters, clerks and office assistants, fall within the category of non-judicial personnel. The importance of non-judicial personnel in delivery of justice services is often underestimated. However, they play a significant role in ensuring efficiency in the system, delivering services, and engaging the public. Therefore, it is crucial to improve their knowledge and skills and raise their level of motivation, professionalism, and ethical standards.

Tailormade capacity building and motivational programs linked with performance measurement practices and appropriate incentives will help give them a sense of self-value and confidence. A capable and motivated group of non-judicial personnel can assume take over a significant load of administrative tasks, relieving judges to focus on judicial duties; maintain favorable environments in courthouses; and increase efficiency in the entire system, while simultaneously minimizing corruption and malpractice. The activity will work with the Ministry of Justice, Judicial Service Commission, Non-Judicial Officers Training Institute, and other relevant institutions to improve the professionalism and skills of non-judicial personnel under this sub-objective.

Expected Results:

- Non-Judicial personnel demonstrate competencies in key areas of operational support and increased commitment;

- Attitude of non-judicial personnel and their peers is positive

- (e.g., self-image as honest, professional, performing a public service, not corrupt); and

- Improved performance management systems practiced and linked to incentives

Illustrative activities

- Supporting curricular development for non-judicial personnel;

- Introducing performance management systems and practices; and

- Providing tailor-made training for non-judicial personnel in the justice system.

Links to other Justice sector programs

The current USAID Coherent Open Responsive and Effective Justice (CORE Justice) program addressed several sub-objective areas described above. Improving case management systems and introducing best practices in customer service and information sharing in model courts, curriculum development for judges and lawyers, are some examples. The CORE Justice program works closely with the SLJI, AGD, JSC and the Colombo Law Society to implement such interventions. CORE Justice also conducted training courses for commercial mediators and supported the CCC- ICLP arbitration center develop its business plan. Where appropriate, this activity will build on the work of the CORE Justice program.

The U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) and the U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) are also operational in overlapping areas. While USDOJ is engaged with the AGD in training and other capacity building interventions, USDOC is primarily working in the areas of commercial mediation and arbitration.

A few other development partners are active in the sector. The EU has planned a large ‘justice sector’ program which has a number of overlapping components. This will be implemented by UNDP and UNICEF. The other actors such as the British High Commission, The Asia Foundation, The Asian Development Bank, are active with programs of different scales.

– END OF RFI#2021/C –