The judiciary has accused some lawyers of frustrating the alternative dispute resolution, a mechanism introduced to not only promote social cohesion within communities, but also help reduce the backlog of cases that are tried within the court system.

The reduction of backlog means judges will be able to expeditiously handle the cases they must try, hence timely delivery of justice.

It is a widely-held view that when two litigants agree to settle their dispute out of court, the likelihood of avoiding future conflict between the two parties is much higher, when compared to pursuing their dispute through the conventional court system.

In the conventional court system, there is a winner and a loser, something that can be avoided once parties settle out of court.

Alternatively, through alternative dispute resolution, a negotiated settlement is reached, one where both parties walk away satisfied. Besides, this system is less costly to both parties because they then avoid amassing legal fees in billable hours from their respective lawyers.

It is therefore disheartening to hear that some lawyers, against their oath of attorney, decide to put their personal interest ahead of their cardinal duty as officers of the court, which is to ensure equitable justice.

While such lawyers doing this are much fewer than those who support alternative dispute resolution, those few must be dealt with by their peers through their professional body, the Rwanda Bar Association, before the vice spreads further.

Rwanda is a country known to use unconventional means to achieve a greater good especially when it comes to dispensing justice, a case in point being the Gacaca court system which not only saw nearly two million cases tried within a record 10 years, but also fostered reconciliation within communities.

Lawyers have a place in the dispensation of justice through dispute resolution mechanisms so they should stop misadvising their clients into prosecuting their cases through the court system when they have a cheaper and faster option of using alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.