The court system has been the centre of attention for the past few weeks passing judgements on high-profile cases that have even garnered widespread headlines in the international press. The recent decisions on the CUD members and subsequent granting of amnesty by President Girma W. Girogis, as well as the Supreme Court's decision on former TPLF strongman Seeye Abreha, have captured the scruting of the country.

Last week saw the courts on their own making news by hitting a milestone in the Court Administration Reform programmes begun in 1994. Ethiopian courts became the leader in information technology (IT) implementation in sub-Saharan Africa by bringing into operation a three-pronged service package which greatly enhances the dissemination of judicial rulings, procedures and progress. Through a greatly enhanced Website with powerful search capabilities and a voice messaging system with automated databases, citizens are now able to claim a greater access to crucial court information.

This development that came about on Friday, August 3, 2007, is a huge achievement for a court system that has been plagued by criticisms of lack of accountability, transparency and independence. The independence of the judiciary as a branch that can provide checks and balances to both the executive and legislative arms originates from critiques of the system of appointments by the executive branch that, for the last 16 years of EPRDF rule since the downfall of the Derg, produced the current faces of the courts through one party's appointments. The various benches that shaped the current courts and thus important judicial decisions that interpret the laws of the land are often criticised for not being the stalwart protectors of justice they ought to be.

The refusal of the CUD members to respect the authority of the courts in their trials and defend themselves shows that at least some members of society are convinced the system is flawed.

Moreover, the efficiency of the courts may be called into question as delays due to absentee judges, amongst other reasons, have been all too common. The 40-plus delays in the Seeye Abreha is a case in point where a defendant has languished in prison for too long while the judicial branch has failed to perform its functions in a timely manner.

While the conclusion drawn from the IT introductions should in no way be an assumption that these deep rooted problems will now disappear, the monitoring mechanisms to at least gauge their presence and cite factual information to criticise these institutions is now at the fingertips of more concerned citizens and monitoring bodies. These newly implemented services should be looked upon as opportunities and tools to improve upon a flawed system and not an end in and of themselves.

For instance, a voice messaging system is only as good as the implementation of information updating and the degree of its comprehensiveness. The ability for people anywhere with a phone to check on the latest updates to pending cases will save time for travel to courts to obtain information and decrease the information asymmetries that prevail when those with more access to the courts gain an upper hand over those without the ability or means to acquire it. As long as this information is communicated and presented in a comprehensive and coherent manner, it will empower citizens.

As the access to Internet continues to increase, especially in urban centres where the courts have a larger presence in dispute resolution, databases containing court decisions and procedures give the populace a better understanding of the system of justice to which they are accountable. If the Web search databases are complete and the information is accurate, litigators and the public at large will be better informed of an often dauntingly complicated aspect of public life. Information about past cases will be invaluable to determine potential outcomes and strategies in the present.

Moreover, deepening the availability of basic information on jurisdiction and procedural compliance give concerned parties the power of facts to be informed and engage responsibly in civil society. Knowing one’s rights as is possible with a better understanding of legislation which can now be searched on the updated court Website is important in a developing society engaged in a transition into more systematised application of authority.

The ability to submit documents to courts over the Web is a great improvement over the time consuming process that often seems unfair and inefficient for service delivery that occurs when one is necessitated to enter into any government institution. Chipping away at the prevailing trend of physical travel to get anything done in Ethiopia is positive, especially when coming from an institution that is meant to dole out justice. However, it does necessitate a careful eye to the potential of hacking the system when submitting sensitive legal documents.

This project, funded by the Canadian International Development Agency, has the prospect to bring about changes in a country where accurate and complete information is lacking in too many facets of society. It is essential that these tools reach their potential as the public, academics and organisations use them to hold the judiciary accountable to the standards outlined in high-minded rhetoric of institutional goals. Having a vision such as the Federal Court "to be and be seen to be more efficient, effective, independent, accessible and accountable" looks good on paper, but is currently far from the wording that comes to mind when characterising the judiciary.

Detailed studies and examinations of the courts may now be conducted with greater ease and accuracy that hopefully will reveal some of the problems with the courts that are often suspected but lack factual evidence.

The recent development must, however, be kept in perspective as a small step in the right direction to reform courts as responsive institutions. Currently, the information system is only available for the Federal High Courts and will probably be used by urban middle and upper classes possessing the resources and know-how to acquire and process this type of information. The questions and limitations involving access discrepancies, though often unavoidable in the short-run, should come to mind when a new system is introduced that has the potential to level the playing field.

The process by which the new IT system is implemented and extended to cover the other 700-plus courts at the lower levels and to be available in other languages should be expedited. Moreover, the glitches experienced and search engines that were unavailable or unsatisfactory upon this newspaper's examination of the site must be remedied continuously.

Other government institutions should view the initiatives in the court IT systems as an act to follow. The National Bank of Ethiopia's (NBE) Website that claims to have last been updated in 2005, for instance, is a glaring deficiencies on a list of government institutions that are failing to actively and effectively communicate with the public. Only an informed citizenry can hold accountable its leaders and produce good governance.

Taking the initiative to make the procedures and history of a government institution known is a step in the right direction in a country that has a lot to be desired in terms of information disclosure. It is now to be seen if the access to records and proceedings changes the contents of future records in a positive way.