From Hearsay to Observation: Livestreamed Court Proceedings and Public Trust in Mogadishu’s Post-Conflict Judiciary
This qualitative study of Mogadishu's post-conflict judiciary reveals that while livestreaming court proceedings shifts public perception from hearsay to direct observation, its impact on public trust is conditional, enhancing legitimacy only when courts demonstrate visible neutrality and professionalism, but potentially eroding it if proceedings appear biased or flawed.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
The Courtroom on Your Screen: From Gossip to Reality
Imagine you are trying to figure out if a new restaurant is actually good. You have two choices: you can ask your friends what they heard about the food, or you can walk right into the kitchen and watch the chefs cook. In the world of law, this is the difference between hearsay and observation. For a long time, people in places recovering from conflict, like Mogadishu, Somalia, had to rely on the "friends"—the rumors, the news headlines, and the stories passed around the neighborhood—to decide if their courts were fair. This is tricky because rumors can be wrong, biased, or just plain scary.
The big question researchers have been asking is: What happens if we flip the switch and let everyone watch the cooking show? This is where livestreaming comes in. It's like putting a camera in the courtroom so anyone with a phone can see the judge, the lawyers, and the evidence in real-time. The idea is that if people can see the process, they will trust the result more. But there's a catch: seeing the process doesn't automatically mean you'll like what you see. If the chefs are burning the food or arguing in the kitchen, watching them might make you trust the restaurant less. This study dives into exactly that scenario in Mogadishu, asking whether turning the courtroom into a live broadcast actually builds trust, or if it just gives people a better view of the problems they already suspected.
The Mogadishu Experiment: Watching the Gavel Drop
In the bustling, rebuilding city of Mogadishu, a researcher named Osman Aded Osman and his team decided to test this "live-streaming" idea. They didn't just look at the technology; they looked at the people. They interviewed 20 adult residents of the city. To make a fair comparison, they split the group right down the middle: 10 people who had actually watched court cases on their phones or TVs, and 10 people who had never seen a livestream and relied on the usual gossip and news reports.
The team used a method called reflexive thematic analysis, which is a fancy way of saying they listened to the stories, found the repeating patterns, and grouped them into big ideas. They wanted to know: Does seeing the court in action change how people feel about justice?
From Whispers to Windows
The first big discovery was a shift in how people got their information. Before watching the streams, the "non-watchers" lived in a world of hearsay. Their knowledge of the courts came from second-hand stories, family members' bad experiences, or headlines that might have been edited. One person noted that different sources gave different versions of the same case, leaving them confused about what really happened.
But for the 10 watchers, the experience was different. They described moving from "hearing about it" to "seeing it." They could see the judge asking questions, the lawyers making their arguments, and how the evidence was handled. One participant put it simply: "The difference lies in the details obtained when watching a livestream compared with hearing what happened from someone whose bias may be unknown." It was like finally getting to peek behind the curtain instead of just guessing what's on the stage.
The "Conditional" Trust
Here is the most important part, and it's a bit of a plot twist: Watching the court did not automatically make people trust it more.
The paper suggests that livestreaming is a conditional trust-building mechanism. Think of it like a spotlight. If the judge is calm, the lawyers are professional, and the rules are followed, the spotlight makes the court look good, and trust goes up. But if the judge seems biased, the lawyers are unprepared, or the proceedings look messy, that same spotlight makes the problems more obvious, and trust goes down.
- The Good News: Some watchers felt more confident because they saw the judges acting neutral and the lawyers arguing professionally. They saw the "procedural fairness" with their own eyes.
- The Bad News: Other watchers felt less confident. They saw delays, weak arguments, or signs that outside forces (like politics or clan influence) might be interfering. For them, the livestream didn't fix the problem; it just confirmed their fears.
One watcher said, "Watching trials live made me feel both more and less confident." It depended entirely on what they saw that day.
The Non-Watchers: Skeptical but Curious
The 10 people who didn't watch had a different perspective. They were stuck between distrust and curiosity. They didn't watch for a few reasons: they were too busy, they didn't know where to find the streams, or they were worried about privacy (like, "Do we really need to see a family dispute on Facebook?").
However, they weren't against the idea. Most said, "If the streams were easier to find, shorter, and explained clearly, we would watch." They were willing to give it a try, but only if the court promised to be fair and professional. They felt that without seeing the process, they had to rely on the court's reputation, which was often shaky in a post-conflict city.
The Double-Edged Sword
The study also found that livestreaming is a double-edged sword.
- The Good Edge: It creates accountability. When judges and lawyers know they are being watched, they might act more professionally. It stops some of the "backroom deals" from happening in the dark.
- The Bad Edge: It creates risks. The participants worried about privacy. What if an innocent person is accused, gets acquitted, but their face is still on the internet forever? What if a clip is edited to look bad? What if the public pressure makes the judge panic?
The researchers found that while livestreaming is great for transparency, it needs rules. It shouldn't be a "free-for-all" broadcast. Sensitive cases, like those involving children or sexual violence, should probably stay off the stream to protect the people involved.
The Bottom Line
So, what's the verdict? The paper suggests that livestreaming is not a magic wand that fixes a broken justice system. It doesn't just "fix" trust by turning on a camera.
Instead, it acts as a magnifying glass.
- If the court is doing a good job (fair, neutral, professional), the magnifying glass makes it look even better, and trust grows.
- If the court is doing a bad job (biased, slow, corrupt), the magnifying glass makes the flaws huge, and trust shrinks.
In Mogadishu, and likely in many other places rebuilding their justice systems, the answer isn't just to "stream everything." The answer is to make sure the court is actually doing a good job first, and then use the stream to show the world that it's happening. As the authors conclude, livestreaming should be seen as a carefully controlled transparency process, not just a free public broadcast. It's a tool that can build trust, but only if the people behind the gavel are ready to be seen.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.