Enhancing the Rule of Law in Seychelles through the Strengthening of Monitoring and Oversight Capacity of the Judiciary

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2007-2011, Seychelles
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
12/2011
Completion Date:
12/2011
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
5,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document TERMS OF REFERENCE for FINAL EVALUATION OF DGTTF PROJECT.DOCX tor English 24.29 KB Posted 672
Download document Final Evaluation of DGTTF Project - Judiciary.docx report English 428.39 KB Posted 741
Title Enhancing the Rule of Law in Seychelles through the Strengthening of Monitoring and Oversight Capacity of the Judiciary
Atlas Project Number: 00071456
Evaluation Plan: 2007-2011, Seychelles
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 12/2011
Planned End Date: 12/2011
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Democratic Governance
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Effective, responsive, accessible and fair justice systems promote the rule of law, including both formal and informal processes, with due consideration on the rights of the poor, women and vulnerable groups
Evaluation Budget(US $): 5,000
Source of Funding: DGTTF Funds
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with GoS/UNODC/UNDP
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Mahrookh Pardiwalla Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: No
Key Stakeholders: Government of Seychelles, Supreme Court, UNDP and UNODC
Countries: SEYCHELLES
Comments: This is a Final Evaluation for the DGTTF project Reform of Judiciary in Seychelles which was not forseen when the Plan was prepared.
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Poor original project design. No logic frame, measurable targets or indicators. No assessment of risks and limited appreciation of the culture of the organisation and readiness for change.
2 Implementation slow and patchy. Judiciary lacked expertise in project management. Insufficient leadership and ownership of the programme within the judiciary to push the reform through at the initial stage. Start of the project coincided with major upheavals and important staff changes including the arrival of the new Chief Justi
3 Team originally involved in project design took a back seat. Insufficient mobilization of internal staff until half way through the project. Not all judges and magistrates are on board and own the project.
4 There are some very positive signs of sustainability but the judiciary is understaffed, under resourced and under skilled and will need external assistance to continue progress
5 The judiciary is still without a functional case management system. It is on its third trial and error phase. This is demotivating for staff
6 The Strategic Plan developed as part of the project and which can be a powerful management tool to mobilize staff is not being implemented in a systematic manner because of lack of staff
7 Local consultants hired to provide consultancy services did not fully understand the needs of the judiciary which was itself not in the best position to articulate its needs and weaknesses clearly
8 Better communication between UNODC, UNDP and the judiciary would have helped to move things eg TORs for consultancies at a faster rate.
1. Recommendation: Poor original project design. No logic frame, measurable targets or indicators. No assessment of risks and limited appreciation of the culture of the organisation and readiness for change.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

The comment is noted for the future. as the Project was developed with the support from UNODC based in Vienna, it was not possible to have a stakeholder meeting to review the results framework. The absence of the log frame is due to the targetted intervention as the project had some specific outputs it sought to achieve in the short space of time for implementation. For the future UNDP will undertake to prepare such projects in a different manner or even prepare it before submitting the EOI to the DGTTF (funds permitting). No further actions required

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project Formulation
[Added: 2012/02/16] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
UNDP CO No due date No deadline established The DGTTF Project is completed and no further actions are required. However the comments is taken on board for future project development. No further actions are required under this recommendation
2. Recommendation: Implementation slow and patchy. Judiciary lacked expertise in project management. Insufficient leadership and ownership of the programme within the judiciary to push the reform through at the initial stage. Start of the project coincided with major upheavals and important staff changes including the arrival of the new Chief Justi
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Partly Agree: The project attempted to build sufficient capacity during implementation. However, internal constraints and staff issues implied that there was a high turnover of staff involved with the project at several stages of implementation. This implied that there could not be a sustained process of development and capacity building for the judiciary personnel throughout the life span of the project. In the second year of the Project UNDP agreed with the Judiciary to hire a full time Project Manager and with her arrival, the project has been able to catch up on the start-up delays and all activities initiated. This allowed for better coordination between the 3 parties (Judiciary, UNDP and UNODC.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implementation
[Added: 2012/02/16] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
UNDP CO No due date No deadline established project completed. comment noted and taken on board for future programming
3. Recommendation: Team originally involved in project design took a back seat. Insufficient mobilization of internal staff until half way through the project. Not all judges and magistrates are on board and own the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

The changes at the level of the Project coordinator (3 different ones) the Project Director (2 different ones) the Project Accountant (2 different ones) meant that none of the judiciary staff really benefited fully or experienced a full project cycle which could have left the institution with enhanced project management skills. The delay in start-up coincided with the arrival of a new Chief Justice, which actually was one factor that allowed for smoother implementation on the one hand. On the other hand, internal upheavals implied that internally the project lacked the complete buy-in and ownership of some key staff.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Ownership
[Added: 2012/02/16]
CO and NIM No due date No deadline established no further action necessary as this is an internal matter on which UNDP does not have much influence.
4. Recommendation: There are some very positive signs of sustainability but the judiciary is understaffed, under resourced and under skilled and will need external assistance to continue progress
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Agree. The sustainability of the project will depend on the Judiciary?s capacity to utilize fully the skills. Resources and systems designed under the project whilst obtaining the additional resources required from the Ministry of Finance (Government) to fully benefit from the new tools and systems in place. Recruitment of additional resources will be required as well and will also depend on budgetary allocation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Sustainability
[Added: 2012/02/16]
Government No due date No deadline established Supreme Court will ensure that sufficent funds are allocated in the yearly budget by the government in order to implement its strategic plan and ensure sustainability of the actions.
5. Recommendation: The judiciary is still without a functional case management system. It is on its third trial and error phase. This is demotivating for staff
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Agree: The Case Management System which is the core of the project is a longer term project and goes beyond the life-span of this project. The funds limitation of the DGTTF project implied that the project could only start the process by looking st various systems and to tailor it to the local context. The Judiciary will have to decide on what system is best for Seychelles and evaluate the cost and benefits of the before obtaining the necessary funds, training the appropriate personnel and buying the correct software. Nevertheless there has been improvements on part of the case flow management with installation of electronic system for court reporters, which has greatly reduced the time it takes for completion of a case.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Case Management system
[Added: 2012/02/16]
Judiciary/ Government No due date No deadline established The establishment and development of the case management system is ongoing and partly operational. fulkl completion will depends on sufficient funds from the government.
6. Recommendation: The Strategic Plan developed as part of the project and which can be a powerful management tool to mobilize staff is not being implemented in a systematic manner because of lack of staff
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Agreed: Judiciary needs to hire sufficient staff in order to effectively implement the Strategic Plan.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Strategic Plan implementation
[Added: 2012/02/16] [Last Updated: 2013/12/18]
Judiciary 2013/06 Completed The Judiciary have now a fully equipeed personnel and have moved since June 2013 to a brand new building equippeed with all the necessary IT equipment and required personnel. The Strategic Plan is under implementation by the Supreme Court
7. Recommendation: Local consultants hired to provide consultancy services did not fully understand the needs of the judiciary which was itself not in the best position to articulate its needs and weaknesses clearly
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Partly agreed: Local consultants have a fairly good idea of what is required as per terms of reference prepared. However, issue arises with resistance to changes internally led to the real and perceived needs not being articulated or addressed in the process. Needs assessment will be carried out prior to developing future projects as far as possible

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Technical Assistance
[Added: 2012/02/16]
UNDP CO/Judiciary No due date No deadline established no additional comments
8. Recommendation: Better communication between UNODC, UNDP and the judiciary would have helped to move things eg TORs for consultancies at a faster rate.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/02/12] [Last Updated: 2012/02/16]

Agreed: The difficulty in implementing this project jointly has been highlighted and the challenges of joint programming. AS both UNDP and UNODC had no local presence on the ground, this created additional problems for regular interactions on the ground

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Joint Programming
[Added: 2012/02/16]
UNDP/UNODC No due date No deadline established better strategy for joint programme implementation needs to be adopted when other agencies are involved. management arrangements need to be defined in more details.

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org