Formally Open But Practically Stalled Court-rooms

May 23 , 2026. By Yehualashet Tamiru ( Yehualashet Tamiru (yehuala5779@gmail.com) is a partner at Ethio Alliance Advocates LLP. )

The Federal Supreme Court circular applies an open-hearing mandate across the board, affecting a system already burdened by congested dockets and limited resources. The Constitution permits closed sessions only under specific exceptions to protect the privacy rights of parties, public morals, or national security. Without an increase in physical infrastructure and space, rotating or postponing hearings due to the unavailability of a suitable courtroom adds immediate burdens to individual litigants seeking timely remedies.

A recent circular issued by the President of the Federal Supreme Court requiring court proceedings to be conducted in open hearings has sparked a consequential debate over judicial openness. Few principles are more central to fair justice than the public character of court proceedings.

Open justice allows citizens to see how courts work, judges reason, and state power is exercised in disputes over liberty, property, family and commerce. It is meant to build confidence in the judicial system, exposing proceedings to scrutiny, for judges and litigants alike.

One of the basic rules governing court procedure is the “principle of openness,” which refers to public access to courts and judicial proceedings. It covers more than the right of parties to attend their own hearings. It also includes observing proceedings and accessing information on how courts function.

The right to a public hearing matters not only to litigants but also to journalists, researchers, lawyers, law students and civil society organisations. They allow trial monitoring, public oversight of judges, legal education, and a broader understanding of the justice system.

Proceedings held in public are more likely to be seen as impartial and accountable. Public access can reduce the risk of arbitrary decisions, corruption and abuse of judicial authority. It also allows students to observe legal reasoning and courtroom practice rather than learn it only from textbooks. In that sense, the Supreme Court’s push for open hearings affirms its desire to improve transparency and judicial accountability.

The foundation for public hearings is found in Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The accused persons have the right to a public trial by an ordinary court of law within a reasonable time after being charged. The Constitution also permits closed sessions only when necessary to protect the privacy rights of parties, public morals or national security.

In criminal cases, therefore, public hearings are not only a procedural preference. They are a constitutional safeguard for the right to a fair trial and for confidence in the criminal justice system.

Yet, the circular also raises a practical question.

Can a court system already strained by crowded dockets, limited courtrooms, and scarce resources make openness mandatory across the board without further slowing justice?

I am afraid the answer is not straightforward, although the principle may sound reasonable. Its blanket implementation, particularly in civil proceedings, may be less so.

The practical burden is harder to dismiss because openness is not cost-free. It requires courtrooms large enough to accommodate members of the public, seating arrangements that do not disrupt proceedings, security management, and facilities capable of handling larger attendance. Many courts operate with serious infrastructural constraints, including overcrowded hearing rooms, inadequate filing systems, limited judicial manpower and insufficient space.

These shortcomings shape the pace and quality of justice every day.

Where space is inadequate, a mandatory open-hearing rule may force courts to organise cases around available courtrooms rather than procedural urgency or judicial priority. Hearings could be rotated or postponed, not because the law requires adjournment, but for the unavailability of a suitable room. Such delays would weaken timely adjudication, one of the core promises of justice.

Delays in civil cases are not minor inconveniences. Businesses waiting for commercial judgments face uncertainty. Families involved in personal disputes endure prolonged stress. Individuals seeking remedies bear financial, social and psychological costs. A reform intended to increase confidence in courts could instead deepen frustration if it lengthens proceedings.

This risk is especially acute in a judiciary long criticised for backlogs and slow case disposition. The courts are already carrying congested dockets. Adding procedural requirements without matching resources could aggravate existing inefficiencies.

The circular presents a familiar reform dilemma. Transparency is necessary, but it should be matched with capacity. Open hearings can strengthen public participation and trust. When implemented without adequate infrastructure, they may have the opposite effect, worsening delays and fueling doubts about judicial efficiency.

A justice system gains little from proceedings that are formally open but practically stalled.

Article 20(1) refers specifically to “accused persons,” indicating that the constitutional duty to hold public hearings is directed mainly at criminal proceedings. Civil proceedings do not carry the same explicit constitutional command.

The Constitution does not impose the same degree of obligation on courts in civil matters. However, courts may still hear civil cases publicly in the interest of transparency and accountability. Extending a uniform open-hearing requirement to all proceedings by administrative circular may invite questions about its constitutional footing and practical necessity.

A more balanced approach would distinguish between criminal and civil proceedings. Criminal trials should remain public as a constitutional requirement, subject only to the recognised exceptions of privacy, public morals and national security.

Civil proceedings could follow a more flexible standard, with openness gradually expanded according to courtroom capacity, resources, and the public importance of the case. Such a distinction would preserve the constitutional core of open justice while avoiding unnecessary strain on ordinary civil litigation.

Institutional investment should accompany any broader move toward openness. Larger courtrooms, improved filing systems, better case management, digital publication of judgments and virtual hearing mechanisms could make transparency more workable.

Courts could also adopt selective openness, prioritising cases of high public interest while retaining procedural flexibility in routine civil matters. Technology, including live streaming where appropriate, may provide public access without requiring every interested observer to be physically present in courtrooms.

The principle of openness remains indispensable to the rule of law. Public hearings promote accountability, transparency and confidence in courts. But reforms should respect institutional realities.

A policy can be appropriate in theory but counterproductive in practice if introduced without preparation. The Supreme Court’s circular signals a positive aspiration toward greater judicial openness. Its success will depend on whether the implementation is cautious, well-resourced, and sufficiently tailored to avoid worsening the very delays and backlogs that already test public trust in the judiciary.

PUBLISHED ON May 23,2026 [ VOL 27 , NO 1360]