Deadbeat 'justice' exposes flaws in judicial systems

Social media is slowly taking over the role of the Judiciary and the police in civil and criminal dispute resolution in Kenya.

In the past few days, a recently launched Facebook page dedicated to exposing parents who are not supporting their children has raised a huge storm, as has an older page devoted to exposing con artists.

There are several concerns that have been raised with the proliferation of these pages. One of them arises from the fact that they present only one side of the story, even though the page administrators insist that they make inquiries with all parties before publishing the stories. The costs in damaged personal and business reputations are enormous and it is perilous to leave such final determinations of guilt to amorphous individuals who have usurped judicial power that is vested in the courts, and who are not accountable to anyone.

These challenges aside, the pages have brought to the fore several weaknesses in our judicial and other dispute resolution mechanisms. They are coming up to satisfy a need that is not fulfilled by the existing mechanisms of dispute resolution.

Parents seeking child support are ordinarily expected to make their claims through the court system, which exists to settle such disputes in a civilised way, giving all parties the benefits of impartiality as well as the right to be heard, and the children involved the privacy they deserve. The court will look into, among other things, the child’s parentage, the responsibility of each parent towards the child and the financial and other capacity of a parent to meet whatever obligations the court imposes.

The emergence of the Facebook pages where decorum and the right to be heard by an impartial court or tribunal are tossed out the window, and the vigour with which people have taken to them, is therefore seen as a serious indictment on the judicial system.

Any action involving a child must be centred around the best interests of that child. Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that those exposing ‘deadbeat parents’ are after anything more than causing embarrassment and humiliation that has drawn thousands of fun-seeking people to the page.

Moreover, it is quite unlikely that exposing the parents to the public through Facebook will compel them to pay child support.

Where the parents of a child are separated, the best interests of the child are served by ensuring that both parents contribute to the child’s upbringing, not by embarrassing the parent that has failed in his/her responsibilities through social media.

It has been argued that the forum is good for venting but single parents who have pent up anger after years of neglect should find other avenues of venting, away from forums where their innocent children are equally exposed to ridicule.

Many people perceive the court process to be too costly. The Constitution demands that costs and procedural formalities for filing cases be kept at a minimum, and that the Judiciary should actively pursue the entrenchment of alternative forms of dispute resolution. Institutions like the National Council for Children Services and the Director of Children Services should build their capacities to resolve some of these cases so that the Judiciary is not left to address all of them.

Perhaps the strongest charge against the Judiciary is in the posts that allege that the men who are exposed on the page were previously ordered by the courts to pay child support, but they were not honouring these court orders. A general disobedience of court orders breeds lawlessness and puts the rule of law to disrepute.

Ken Ogutu, Massachusetts