The Judiciary has issued a rejoinder challenging a Foroyaa article authored by Yankuba Jallow on the slow pace of judicial proceedings due to the absence of magistrates and judges in courtrooms. The Judicial Secretary, in the statement, clarified that “courts do not operate solely by sitting continuously throughout the day. Judicial work is multifaceted, some hours often in the afternoons are reserved for work in chambers, including the writing of rulings and judgments, legal research, and administrative duties. The working hours of judicial officers are therefore complex and cannot be gauged solely by courtroom presence.”
The Judicial Secretary further stated that “the article contains broad and generalized allegations without adequate specificity. The absence of case numbers, dates, or particularized incidents makes it difficult for the Judiciary to verify or address the concerns. Reporting of this nature undermines the potential for constructive dialogue and meaningful reform.”
It is important to clarify that Foroyaa remains committed to public interest journalism. This commitment has guided our editorial policy over the years and remains the reason we wrote to the Judicial Secretary weeks before publishing our findings, which are evidence-based. The letter was dated 16 June 2025 and was submitted on the same day. In addition, the reporter made several follow-ups through the Records Office and the personal secretary of the Judicial Secretary. From the date of submission until the date of publication, the invitation was not honoured.
The letter requested an interview to seek clarity on the limited daily sitting hours of Magistrates’ Courts and the growing backlog of cases resulting from frequent adjournments. It outlined public concern over how early court closures—often around 2:00 p.m.—impact access to justice and prolong the resolution of cases. The letter further noted that proceedings frequently begin late and end early, regardless of the number of cases scheduled for the day. It also referenced several interviews conducted with court users, legal practitioners, and public interest advocates who echoed these same concerns. Among the topics proposed for discussion were whether there exists any formal policy guiding early adjournments, the factors contributing to them, and whether reforms are being considered to improve judicial efficiency.
The Judicial Secretary noted that “specific complaints, when properly presented, allow the administration to investigate, intervene and take corrective action where necessary.” We agree with this principle and note that there are two forms of reporting that are used by journalists. One is based on verifying specific wrongdoing with the aim of ensuring accountability and disciplinary action. The other is a generalisation based on concrete evidence to highlight systemic issues and encourage internal reflection and voluntary reform, especially where no individual is being directly accused.
In this context, it would not be fair to “respectfully urge Foroyaa and the wider media to engage in balanced, factual, and solution-oriented journalism,” when Foroyaa did make efforts to obtain the Judiciary’s version before publication. Foroyaa has always had and will always have the fundamental objective of publishing the truth in good faith in the public interest.
We acknowledge the Judiciary’s statement that it remains committed to transparency, access to justice, and ongoing improvements in service delivery. Constructive engagement and accurate reporting are vital to achieving these goals.
We look forward to the Judicial Secretary honouring the invitation for an interview—on any day and at any time of his convenience. The doors of Foroyaa remain open.
