Zimbabwe’s judiciary talks of transparency and technology to shore up public trust
by BERNARD CHIKETO
IN THE grand, often grim theatre of Zimbabwean public life, the judiciary has not always played a heroic role. Critics have long accused it of political timidity, crippling delays, and opaque operations.
So, when Justice Anna Gowora of the Constitutional Court stood before legal officers in Mutare this month to open the 2026 legal year, her speech was more than ceremonial.
It was the latest bulletin from a cautious campaign of institutional self-repair.
For the past year, she explained, the Judicial Services Commission (JSC) had operated under the theme “Building Public Confidence in the Judiciary Through Multi-Stakeholder Participation.”
This, she said, reflected a “shared understanding that public trust…was strengthened when the Judiciary worked openly” with prosecutors, police, civil society and the public.
The rhetoric was familiar. But Justice Gowora pointed to modest, tangible outcomes in Mutare: collaboration with police and prosecutors had increased the number of criminal trials set down per term from around 28 to 34; a review of inmate cases with the prisons department saw five prisoners released.
For 2026, the judiciary is pivoting to a new, technocratic mantra: “Using Performance Management and Technology to Ensure Quality, Inclusive and Sustainable Judicial Service.”
The aim, Justice Gowora outlined, is to leverage modern tools and metrics to meet the constitution’s demand for fair, timely and efficient justice.
The focus will be on administrative efficiency—case management, timely judgments, functional registries—while insisting judicial independence remains “inviolable”.
A new deputy secretary is to be appointed to oversee technology and innovation.
The strategy rests on three pillars: quality, inclusivity and sustainability.
Technology is touted as the great leveller, with virtual hearings and electronic filing meant to overcome barriers of distance and cost.
Performance benchmarks are to make services measurable and transparent.
It is, in essence, a management consultant’s prescription for a beleaguered institution: become more efficient, accessible and accountable, and trust may follow.
Sceptics will note that in Zimbabwe, the judiciary’s deepest crises of confidence have seldom been about case-management systems.
They arise from perceived political interference, particularly in high-stakes matters involving the state.
A more efficient court that still shies from contentious rulings may win little acclaim. Moreover, the technological overhaul requires funding and reliable infrastructure—scarce commodities in a struggling economy.
Yet the JSC’s approach is not without logic.
By focusing on the mundane mechanics of justice—the backlog of minor trials, the forgotten prisoner, the rural litigant’s travel costs—it seeks to accumulate a reserve of public trust through improved service delivery.
It is a ground-up strategy in a country where top-down institutional legitimacy is in short supply.
Whether measurable gains in administrative justice can eventually bolster the judiciary’s courage in constitutional matters remains the untested, and far more significant, question.
For now, the bench is counting on better management to rebuild its reputation, one case file at a time.
Do you have a story to share? Email bchiketo@gmail.com