Introduction

The world is becoming increasingly unpredictable. Crises can happen suddenly, without any warning. Covid-19 is an example: the precipitous rise in cases took countries by surprise and lockdowns – unimaginable before – quickly became commonplace. The recent regional war started suddenly on a Saturday at the end of February, and by that same afternoon, seven countries had been attacked. During both crises, schools and workplaces were rapidly and suddenly closed, and working and learning continued as best it could from home. Each industry has its own contingencies, with some necessarily limited by the nature of the work; by way of example, the healthcare industry simply cannot be fully remote: patients still require access to healthcare professionals and medicine, and emergency care still needs to be provided, to name but two examples.
Justice is one of those which can, particularly in the civil law sphere, be conducted remotely. This is often – of course – a sub-optimal situation, but one which is becoming increasingly necessary in an unpredictable world. It is therefore critical that court leaders consider what mitigations they might put in place for times of crisis, such as the one currently enveloping the MENA region.

The importance of courts

Why is this important? Two (interrelated) reasons strike one as particularly pertinent. First, it is one of the core functions of the state to promote and uphold the rule of law. One of the ways in which it does this is through the functioning of an efficient dispute resolution system comprising – for our purposes – the civil law of the land and the court system. If the court system is unable to function, for whatever reason, the rule of law is undermined. Second, access to justice, particularly for those vulnerable members of society, is a critical component of the rule of law. These individuals often do not have any other recourse to right wrongs that may have occurred and so are reliant upon an efficient and just courts system. Courts that cannot function due to a crisis undermine access to justice to the very people whom the state must strive hardest to assist.
The following are a few mitigations that court leaders should consider to ensure that their organisations are able to function properly during a shock.

Policies and procedures

These documents can assist with running an organisation in a consistent and efficient manner. However, if not drafted with contingencies in mind, they can sometimes inhibit a smooth transition from normal operations to a crisis which may require immediate remote working. By way of example, document security policies often prohibit employees from removing confidential papers (to include court papers) from a physical work premises. This on its own is clearly incompatible with an unexpected direction to work from home. This is just one example, and readers will be able to conceptualise others of their own. Therefore, court leaders should ensure that policies and procedures are crafted with crises or emergencies in mind, smoothing the transition to working from home.

Critical infrastructure

Back-ups for critical infrastructure such as IT systems is also fundamental for business continuity. This can be done in one of two ways. In order for court business to be conducted in normal circumstances, an internet connection is a pre-requisite. In a crisis situation, employees also require a functioning internet connection away from the court building. These are two sides of the same coin, as is the contingency: portable internet devices that are not contingent upon local internet connections functioning in case of disruption. Devices that are deployed for court buildings must be capable of providing true contingency by facilitating internet access for all employees and any others that may require it (e.g. judges, parties etc). These devices can then also be deployed to the home of key personnel if required during a period of working from home due to a crisis.

Key personnel

During times of crisis, there are a few core functions without which a court would simply not be able to function. By way of example, during a period in which remote hearings are being held, an IT department is critical. Similarly, court cases simply cannot proceed without the judiciary. Therefore, key, business-critical personnel ought to be identified and be given the tools during times of crisis to ensure business continuity. Whether that is internet access at their homes where circumstances require it; necessary access to the court premises when required even when closed; or delegated lines of authority where they are necessary for the smooth functioning of the core business of a court.

Conclusion

During times of crisis, it is important that the essential functions of the state continue in service of its citizens and residents. The administration of justice is one of those essential state functions which supports a key pillar of modern states: the rule of law. However, this crucial function is at risk – like any others – during times of crisis or emergency. That said, with foresight and proper planning, difficult times can significantly be mitigated. The foregoing should be taken as a starting point as each court will be different and will require measures specific to their own circumstances, and reflect some of the mitigations that my own organisation, the QICDRC, has put in place and which have served us very well during times of crisis: we have, for example, had no court hearings cancelled as a result of the regional war that started in February of this year, and indeed have also conducted our longest trial over the same period.

Faisal Rashid Al-Sahouti

Published on LexisNexis Middle East Law Alert | May/June 2026