The Judiciary has been lauded for experimenting with technology to enable a semblance of the continuation of court proceedings.
These are, indeed, difficult times, and it is understandable that Chief Justice David Maraga has once again had to rule out the reopening of courts any time soon.
It is, of course, a decision that has been made in the best interest of all the parties concerned. The lives of magistrates, judges, advocates and court orderlies and the suspects must be safeguarded.
One distinguishing characteristic of the courts that has made the enforcement of the regulation on social distancing necessary is the endemic crowding.
True, these measures have slowed down the delivery of justice, but it is better to protect lives, even if that means delaying justice a little.
Had the usually congested courts been allowed to continue sitting, we would probably be, by now, overwhelmed by infections and possible deaths.
However, this does not mean that there are no gaps that need to be addressed to make the process even more effective.
Parliament has shown it is possible to enhance the use of technology. The other day, Parliament used a balloting system to pick only 58 members to enter the debating chamber as the others followed the proceedings online.
It is possible, for instance, in addition to the hearing and delivery of rulings and judgments by video link, to also limit the attendance of court to, say, magistrates, advocates and prosecutors.
Social distancing can be achieved by reducing the number of people in the courts.
Since, the country appears to be in this for the long haul, all the parties concerned need to consult on how to enhance the delivery of justice without endangering lives.
