This is the third and final in a series of three posts we are featuring on the work of the Federal Supreme Court in Ethiopia. To catch up, we encourage you to read the first and second part of the interview where you can find a detailed discussion of the nature of the new judicial performance evaluation system, challenges the Court encountered while piloting and implementing the new system and innovative strategies it employed to overcome some of these challenges.The Federal Supreme Court has been one of the most engaged Ethiopian government institutions in the process of reform to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of their services, as well as the responsiveness of the services to the needs of the public. This series describes a new system of judicial evaluation that the Supreme Court has been piloting at the federal level for the last few years, and has recently adopted as formal evaluation policy. The series explore the nature of the new evaluation system, the challenges in the implementation, and its prospects for sustainability. 

We have structured the series as a set of excerpts from conversations we had in December 2015 with a Director in the Supreme Court whose responsibility was to pilot and lead the implementation of the new judicial evaluation system. The excerpts are lightly edited for clarity. Here’s what he had to say about the challenges of piloting and refining the innovation:

Q: What are you most proud of in all this process?
A: With limited human resources, we have been modestly successful in introducing the new judicial evaluation system. Making this a system was the hardest part - rather than a mechanism that relies mainly upon specific individuals, it is getting its legs and starting to walk, becoming a system.

Q: What’s been surprising to you in all this process?
A: Mostly how difficult it is to balance the independence of judges with a system of accountability. Judges complain that some questions are subjective and it’s hard to compare judges along those subjective lines.
Judges complain that the feedback process is not quick and they don’t get to see the effect of the evaluation automatically. And when we do get the results, we cannot conduct remedial trainings constantly for judges. They are busy and we don’t want to take away from their court service.
We know that there are various problems surrounding the evaluation, and it will take continuous adjustment. Taking this into account, we are not that harsh on the judges, we don’t jump to making them accountable while this is all being implemented. And we are learning by doing.

Q: What is the biggest challenge ahead?
A: The biggest challenge will be sustaining it. I have been here throughout all the time we have been designing this system, and our leadership has been more or less the same in this period while developing and nourishing this system. But someday when we are not here, will it be sustainable? People come and people go, and institutions like courts do not have competitive salaries to retain people. Things are changing, the overall change in economy and growth in use of courts means the type of expertise required to sustain and enhance this evaluation system may require more. 

Q: What are solutions to this challenge that you are trying?
A: First, we invest in improving our communication methods. We are trying to shout it out loud to the public and stakeholders so that it won’t be forgotten and ignored in the future. People will ask about the system, so we are creating an expectation and hoping to create an obligation to meet it.
Second, we are trying to integrate the evaluation criteria within the benefit package of the judiciary. Evaluating judges should not only be about discipline, but also about reward. For example, the evaluation mechanism should be capable of creating the right incentives for a first instance judge who wants to be promoted to higher court. Right now we have a process where the Judicial Administration Council publicizes information about nominees for judicial roles and the public has an opportunity to give comments before we forward the judge for appointment. We used to examine all federal judges equally with other legal professionals who aspire to become judges. But now we are trying to create one promotion system internally for judges, and another process for legal professionals to compete separately rather than directly with federal judges. Tying the judicial promotion system to the evaluation criteria will help it to be seen in a positive light.

What do you think of this innovation? What questions does it raise for you? Have you had to handle sustainability questions in your professional life? What recommendations do you have? We welcome your reflections. 

Please also watch the video, Integrating Justice and Safety Indicators into Institutional Culture - Part 2: The Experience in Ethiopia's Courts.