There have recently been calls for reforming the Kingdom’s judicial system, mainly by increasing the number of judges. At present there are 640 judges who constitute the entire judicial body. Many people believe that the number is insufficient to cope with the heavy caseload in our courts. It is true that the heavy caseload causes long delays.
In my opinion, the solution is not to increase the number of judges. What is needed is rather a comprehensive restructuring of the judiciary system to make it more efficient.
Justice is one of the main pillars of Muslim society. It is through justice that the security and stability of every individual is ensured under the Shariah laws derived from the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah and other sources of legislation. The duty of the ruler is to prepare rules and regulations that organize judicial proceedings and ensure that court rulings are enforced to guarantee the rights of all parties.
The Saudi government has been keen to ensure that these matters receive due attention; this keenness springs from a deep feeling that the justice sought by every one in this country is the responsibility of the state. This has been the case since the establishment of the Kingdom by King Abdul Aziz and it has continued to be the case with his sons who have come after him.
As Saudi Arabia has now joined the race for modernization and progress, a rapid increase in population and the expansion of our cities and urban areas has made it imperative for the judiciary system to transform itself in order to be able to cope with the changes. I would like to make some observations concerning our judicial system which we need to address.
My first observation is about the routine and bureaucratic red tape that even today mars our judicial proceedings. Excessive use of formalities and too much attention to empty rules and regulations is the norm. Not only that, the case may not be filed through one channel as required but through several government departments, including the governorate or provincial headquarters, the police or Shariah courts. There is no well-defined channel through which a lawsuit should be filed. Also, when it comes to enforcing a ruling, the person who wins the case may approach the governorate, the province or the police to ask for implementation of the court’s decision. Such an approach only leads to more time and effort being wasted for citizens and government although the judicial code clearly stipulates that the settlement of all kinds of disputes is the responsibility of the judiciary. The solution to this lies in breaking the bureaucratic cycle. The filing of lawsuits should be confined to courts and cases should go directly to the court whether they relate to a personal or public dispute. A special government body attached to the Ministry of Interior should carry out the implementation of court rulings. This body would have the authority to enable it to enforce a court ruling and to ensure that the ruling is strictly carried out.
Too much of the time spent on hearing cases and on court proceedings is wasted on paperwork. Even more time will be lost if there is an appeal. Reducing the burden of pointless paperwork would solve this problem and also avoid long delays in reaching decisions.
The process of selecting judges should also be reviewed. Judges can be appointed at the age of 25. People at that age are usually known for their youthful behavior, their multiple activities and perhaps their tendency to question accepted authority. Conferring such power and immunity on young people and granting them all the privileges associated with the job can drive some to misuse their powers. For this reason, judges should be much older before being selected.
Article 37 of the Saudi Judicial Code stipulates that the age of a judge should not be less than 40 years if he sits in a court of cassation and not less than 32 in other positions. An assistant to a judge cannot pass sentences and sits in court with the judge to follow the proceedings. After gaining experience, he may pass sentences in minor cases. It is only after three years in his post that he may be become a judge in category C. This provision must be applied to ensure fairness.
Focusing on geographical areas when appointing judges as has been done recently is a great mistake. Diversification is required to reflect the state’s policy and to prevent the feelings naturally resulting from such a monopoly. Judges should be selected from well-known families of sound financial position to ensure that the person chosen to this post will not seek material gains. This was the approach followed by Caliph Umar ibn Abdul Aziz.
Those selected to the position must be graduates of a Shariah college with an excellent academic record. They must memorize the Holy Qu’ran, have an excellent command of Arabic and must be well versed in Sunnah — the teachings and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). The selection process must be administered by experts. Both physical appearance and mental qualities are important qualifications. Judges should undergo comprehensive training courses and be encouraged to contribute actively to the system through research and studies.
Many of the clerks and junior employees in courts and other relevant departments are not specialists in the field. The shortage of training and human resource development further compounds the problem. We have no right to expect much from a clerk who is not a graduate of a Shariah college even if he has a university degree in other subjects. Trying to qualify such clerks by training will consume much time and effort. It would surely be easier, more reasonable and less costly to train graduates of Shariah to do the job in the first place.
The appearance of the court building is of great importance because it represents a symbol of the system and makes an impression on the public. Court buildings should be prepared and equipped to facilitate the legal process. Many of our courts function in rented government buildings which were not originally designed to serve as courts. What is needed is an urgent plan to construct purpose-built courts all over the Kingdom, especially in big cities, within a fixed period - a maximum of ten years. This is a pressing matter which should not be delayed any longer.
The procedure followed in summoning the litigants encourages defendants to absent themselves from court hearings whether the case has to with a personal or public dispute. The problems usually begin with the address of the defendant being unknown or the guarantor being unable to bring the defendant to court. Sometimes the court finds it impossible to summon the defendant because both the police and the municipal officers lack the power to do so. This problem should be carefully studied and more effective methods introduced to ensure strict enforcement of the law.
