من أثمن الاكتشافات التي وضع الإنسان يده عليها في السنوات الأخيرة، الوقت المهدر-الضائع، ويعود فضل هذا الاكتشاف لما وفرته تقنية الاتصالات الحديثة، وهو الوقت الذي كان يستهلكه ويتطلبه إنجاز أي عمل مهما تناهى صغره وتأثيره قبل استخدام الأفراد والمؤسسات لتقنية الاتصالات الحديثة.
هذا المخزون الهائل من الوقت، الذي تم اكتشافه، شجع المستفيدين من المجتمع والمؤسسات لاكتشاف المزيد من الوقت المهدر-الضائع، فدخل كل أطراف المعادل في حمى السرعة، سرعة الإنجاز. فما هو الحد الفاصل بين القضاء على الوقت المهدر-الضائع وزيادة السرعة في الإجراءات المطلوبة لتحقيق الهدف؟ ومتى تكون السرعة مقبولة؟ ومتى تكون غير مقبولة؟ أي ما هي السرعة المعتدلة والمتزنة التي توازن ما بين الهدف وما يحتاجه من وقت بصرف النظر عن السرعة حتى لا يأتي على حساب الهدف النهائي؟ ومتى تكون السرعة هدفاً بذاتها؟
التقاضي عن بُعد أو التقاضي الرقمي هو إحدى ثمرات تقنية الاتصالات الحديثة، التي قلّصت المسافات بين المتقاضين والمحامين والمؤسسة العدلية، ووفرت سنوات ضوئية من الوقت، وقلصت الكثير الكثير من إجراءات التقاضي الإدارية والطقوس والبروتوكولات الشكلية المعمول بها جزءاً أصيلاً من عمليات التقاضي في كثير من الحالات. بل يمكن القول إن التقاضي عن بُعد وفر الكثير من هدر المال تبعاً لذلك، وبالتالي أسهم بزيادة الإنجاز وتحقيق المستهدفات.
في منصة وزارة العدل السعودي بلغ عدد جلسات التقاضي الإلكتروني منذ انطلاقة الخدمة في التقاضي الإلكتروني في مارس 2020 نحو 1.35 مليون جلسة مرئية عن بُعد فيما أصدرت المحاكم عن بُعد 438 ألف حكم. يذكر أنا التقاضي الإلكتروني يتضمن كافة إجراءات التقاضي المنصوص عليها في الأنظمة الممكن تطبيقها إلكترونياً من تقديم المستندات والمحررات وتبادل المذكرات وعقد الجلسات والمرافعات والنطق بالحكم واستلام نسخة الحكم والاعتراض عليه أمام المحكمة الأعلى درجة وذلك من خلال منصة مخصصة لذلك الغرض. يشار إلى أن التقاضي يتم بنوعيه «الكتابي» و«المرئي»
إن السرعة التي تم من خلالها تطبيق النظام العدلي في المملكة كانت مثار دهشة و إعجاب ليس محلياً فحسب، بل إن هناك بعض الدول ومنها الغربية التي بدأت تحاكي التجربة السعودية في التقاضي عن بُعد.
ومن موقعي كاتباً، يملؤني الامتنان لهذه التجربة الرقمية الثريّة وانعكاساتها الإيجابية على المتغيرات الاجتماعية والحراك الاقتصادي والثقافة الإدارية ومردودها الثقافي على المواطن والمقيم بشكل عام، رغم حداثة التجربة.
لكنني لا أخفي قلقي وتوجسي من أي تجربة جديدة بهذا الحجم وما يتركه الإنجاز الكمي من تأثير على البعد النوعي ليس في حالة التقاضي الإلكتروني فحسب وإنما مع كل المشروعات الكبيرة بحجم وأهمية وتأثير مشروع التقاضي عن بُعد.
لا يساورني شك بأن وزارة العدل والمؤسسة العدلية ككل تدرك أهمية الاتساق والتلازم والتكامل بين البعد النوعي والبعد الكمي لأي إنجاز، فلا تكون السرعة هدفاً على حساب تحقيق المستهدفات الجوهرية للعملية العدلية. فمهما كانت السرعة مطلباً وتوفير الوقت نجاحاً، إلا أن تحقيق العدالة في كل قضية وبين كل المتقاضين مقدَّمةٌ على ما سواها.
لعلني لا أقدم جديداً، حين أقترح على المسؤولين في وزارة العدل والمؤسسة العدلية، الاستعانة بفريق بحثي مستقل وتكليف هذا الفريق بإجراء دراسة شاملة ومعمقة لمختلف أنواع القضايا والأحكام التي صدرت في ظل بيئة ومناخ التقاضي الإلكتروني ومقارنتها بالقضايا والأحكام المماثلة التي نُظرت وصدرت أحكامها خارج منظومة التقاضي الإلكتروني. أظن أن فائدة جمةً ستثمر عنها هذه الدراسة وستنعكس قطعاً على التقييم الشامل لإيجابيات وسلبيات التقاضي الإلكتروني مقارنة بالتقاضي غير الإلكتروني حيث الحضور المباشر للمتقاضين والمحامين والقضاة وجهاً لوجهٍ، وحيث الاتصال دون وسائط تقنية.
عبداللطيف الضويحي
التقاضي عن بُعد.. العدالة ومتلازمة السرعة
24 يونيو 2025 - 00:10
|
آخر تحديث 1 يوليو 2025 - 01:24
تابع قناة عكاظ على الواتساب
One of the most valuable discoveries that humanity has made in recent years is wasted time, and the credit for this discovery goes to modern communication technology. This is the time that was consumed and required to accomplish any task, no matter how small or insignificant, before individuals and institutions began using modern communication technology.
This vast reservoir of time that has been discovered has encouraged beneficiaries from society and institutions to uncover even more wasted time, leading all parties involved to rush towards speed—speed of accomplishment. So, what is the dividing line between eliminating wasted time and increasing the speed of the procedures required to achieve the goal? When is speed acceptable? When is it unacceptable? What is the moderate and balanced speed that balances the goal with the time it requires, regardless of speed, so that it does not come at the expense of the final objective? And when does speed become a goal in itself?
Remote litigation or digital litigation is one of the fruits of modern communication technology, which has reduced the distances between litigants, lawyers, and the judicial institution, saving light-years of time and significantly reducing many administrative litigation procedures, rituals, and formal protocols that are an integral part of litigation processes in many cases. In fact, it can be said that remote litigation has saved a lot of financial waste as a result, thus contributing to increased productivity and achieving targets.
On the Saudi Ministry of Justice platform, the number of electronic litigation sessions since the launch of the electronic litigation service in March 2020 has reached approximately 1.35 million remote video sessions, while the courts have issued 438,000 judgments remotely. It is noted that electronic litigation includes all litigation procedures stipulated in the applicable regulations that can be executed electronically, from submitting documents and papers to exchanging memoranda, holding sessions, pleadings, pronouncing judgments, receiving copies of judgments, and appealing to the higher court, all through a dedicated platform for this purpose. It is worth mentioning that litigation occurs in both "written" and "visual" forms.
The speed with which the judicial system has been implemented in the Kingdom has been a source of astonishment and admiration not only locally but also in some countries, including Western ones, that have begun to emulate the Saudi experience in remote litigation.
From my position as a writer, I am filled with gratitude for this rich digital experience and its positive reflections on social changes, economic movement, administrative culture, and its cultural returns on citizens and residents in general, despite the novelty of the experience.
However, I do not hide my concern and apprehension regarding any new experience of this magnitude and the impact that quantitative achievement leaves on qualitative aspects, not only in the case of electronic litigation but also with all large projects of the size, importance, and impact of the remote litigation project.
I have no doubt that the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institution as a whole recognize the importance of consistency, correlation, and integration between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of any achievement, so that speed does not become a goal at the expense of achieving the essential targets of the judicial process. No matter how much speed is a demand and saving time is a success, achieving justice in every case and among all litigants takes precedence over everything else.
I may not be presenting anything new when I suggest to the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institution to seek the assistance of an independent research team and assign this team to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth study of the various types of cases and judgments issued in the context of the electronic litigation environment and compare them with similar cases and judgments that were reviewed and issued outside the electronic litigation system. I believe that this study will yield significant benefits and will certainly reflect on the overall assessment of the positives and negatives of electronic litigation compared to non-electronic litigation, where litigants, lawyers, and judges are present face-to-face, and where communication occurs without technological intermediaries.
This vast reservoir of time that has been discovered has encouraged beneficiaries from society and institutions to uncover even more wasted time, leading all parties involved to rush towards speed—speed of accomplishment. So, what is the dividing line between eliminating wasted time and increasing the speed of the procedures required to achieve the goal? When is speed acceptable? When is it unacceptable? What is the moderate and balanced speed that balances the goal with the time it requires, regardless of speed, so that it does not come at the expense of the final objective? And when does speed become a goal in itself?
Remote litigation or digital litigation is one of the fruits of modern communication technology, which has reduced the distances between litigants, lawyers, and the judicial institution, saving light-years of time and significantly reducing many administrative litigation procedures, rituals, and formal protocols that are an integral part of litigation processes in many cases. In fact, it can be said that remote litigation has saved a lot of financial waste as a result, thus contributing to increased productivity and achieving targets.
On the Saudi Ministry of Justice platform, the number of electronic litigation sessions since the launch of the electronic litigation service in March 2020 has reached approximately 1.35 million remote video sessions, while the courts have issued 438,000 judgments remotely. It is noted that electronic litigation includes all litigation procedures stipulated in the applicable regulations that can be executed electronically, from submitting documents and papers to exchanging memoranda, holding sessions, pleadings, pronouncing judgments, receiving copies of judgments, and appealing to the higher court, all through a dedicated platform for this purpose. It is worth mentioning that litigation occurs in both "written" and "visual" forms.
The speed with which the judicial system has been implemented in the Kingdom has been a source of astonishment and admiration not only locally but also in some countries, including Western ones, that have begun to emulate the Saudi experience in remote litigation.
From my position as a writer, I am filled with gratitude for this rich digital experience and its positive reflections on social changes, economic movement, administrative culture, and its cultural returns on citizens and residents in general, despite the novelty of the experience.
However, I do not hide my concern and apprehension regarding any new experience of this magnitude and the impact that quantitative achievement leaves on qualitative aspects, not only in the case of electronic litigation but also with all large projects of the size, importance, and impact of the remote litigation project.
I have no doubt that the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institution as a whole recognize the importance of consistency, correlation, and integration between the qualitative and quantitative aspects of any achievement, so that speed does not become a goal at the expense of achieving the essential targets of the judicial process. No matter how much speed is a demand and saving time is a success, achieving justice in every case and among all litigants takes precedence over everything else.
I may not be presenting anything new when I suggest to the officials in the Ministry of Justice and the judicial institution to seek the assistance of an independent research team and assign this team to conduct a comprehensive and in-depth study of the various types of cases and judgments issued in the context of the electronic litigation environment and compare them with similar cases and judgments that were reviewed and issued outside the electronic litigation system. I believe that this study will yield significant benefits and will certainly reflect on the overall assessment of the positives and negatives of electronic litigation compared to non-electronic litigation, where litigants, lawyers, and judges are present face-to-face, and where communication occurs without technological intermediaries.
