Over 30 years, Singapore has transformed its justice sector from paper-heavy processes to a sophisticated digital ecosystem. It was a transformation driven by technology underpinned by strong and disciplined leadership.

The maxim that "justice delayed is justice denied" has its roots in antiquity but is as true today as ever. In the courts, delay is not only an administrative inconvenience. It is the point at which a right in law begins to lose force in practice. When the justice system is too slow, the process itself can become a form of punishment. A defendant may face years of stress, cost and uncertainty before guilt is even determined. For victims and witnesses, delay can be corrosive: memories fade, evidence is lost, and the resilience required to see a case through can be worn down by time. A business waiting years for a commercial dispute to be resolved cannot plan with confidence. A family waiting for probate cannot settle its affairs. A judge waiting for submissions cannot administer justice at the speed citizens expect.

Singapore’s reforms began against the backdrop of severe case backlogs. In the late 1980s, civil cases could take five to six years to resolve. Chief Justice Yong Pung How was appointed with a mandate to improve the efficiency of the court system. By the late 1990s, 95% of civil cases were being resolved within a year. The turnaround was achieved through sustained digitisation, disciplined reform, and decisive leadership.

Despite digitisation offering an opportunity to improve the speed and efficiency of legal administration, many courts across Africa are yet to take full advantage – and the result is delay and disruption. Recent examples across the continent show why the issue remains urgent. In Ghana, the longest-serving Justice of the Court of Appeal, His Lordship Justice Senyo Dzamefe argued in June 2025 that the judiciary needed a technological overhaul, calling for courts to move beyond lengthy handwritten processes. While in Uganda, the National Court Case Census 2025 recorded 5,790 pending commercial cases with a combined subject matter value of UGX 5.981 trillion (approximately US$ 1.66 billion).

Digitisation Calls for Deep Change

While technology alone rarely solves delay, well-led digitisation, supported by clear systems and institutional discipline, can reduce the waiting that too often defines the public experience of justice. But only if digitisation is understood not as the simple act of moving paper forms onto a screen; but as the redesign of judicial work that enables courts to move information more accurately, manage cases more predictably, and serve the public more effectively.

This is where justice sector innovation begins. It is measured by whether new systems change how institutions think, organise information, and respond to the needs of court users. A digital filing platform, for example, is valuable because it can reveal bottlenecks, standardise processes, preserve institutional knowledge, and give judges, lawyers, officials, and citizens a clearer view of how cases are moving through the system.

Lessons from the Singapore Story

Digitisation is therefore a foundational programme for any justice institution. Done properly, it is not a cosmetic upgrade to existing processes, but a rethink of the architecture through which justice is administered. It asks courts to examine how they work, where delay enters the system, and who holds essential knowledge. These questions were at the centre of a presentation by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, Judicial Commissioner of the Supreme Court of Singapore, at the inaugural Chandler Judicial Forum (CJF).

The CJF, held in April 2026 in the Seychelles, explored the theme of Judicial Leadership and Innovation. It brought together sitting Chief Justices from over 12 countries across Southern and Eastern Africa to exchange learnings, examine best practice, and build the connections needed to lead reform in their own jurisdictions. Justice Kwek outlined Singapore’s 30-year journey, carried out under the tenure of three Chief Justices. This continuity gave the reform effort a remarkable degree of institutional stability, allowing the country to address its backlog crisis through case management systems, public-facing digital services, and the careful use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Overcoming Institutional Resistance

A key component of Singapore’s digital transformation was the introduction of mandatory electronic filing. During this process, the electronic filing pilot encountered resistance from within the legal profession. Justice Kwek recalled a visiting judge remarking that many jurisdictions had attempted similar reforms but abandoned them when lawyers objected to the operational burden. “The difference,” Justice Kwek observed, “is that we had Chief Justice Yong. He had the political will to push it through.”

He recounted the story of how Chief Justice Yong dealt with a probate clerk nearing retirement who refused to document his work processes for the IT team. A roadblock that required a behavioural rather than a technological solution. Putting his persuasive powers to use, the Chief Justice had several conversations with the clerk over tea until he eventually agreed to take part in the new process.

Later, when Singapore introduced an online simulator to help litigants assess liability and the quantum of damages in motor accident claims, personal injury lawyers and claims agents objected that it threatened their livelihoods. The courts responded by engaging early with lawyers and pro bono groups, while maintaining that the system improved access to justice for people who could not afford legal representation. Within 18 months of launch, the simulator had recorded over 13,000 uses – a significant number for a population of under six million.

These examples reflect a deeper truth: successful digitisation depends not only on technology, but on the institutional architecture around it. Courts must understand how cases move, how decisions are made and how responsibilities are allocated, before those processes can be documented, improved and embedded in digital systems. One of the first questions, therefore, is not what technology should be purchased. It is what processes need to change, who understands those processes, where resistance may arise, and what institutional capability is required to make reforms last.

Applying AI to the Legal System

Justice Kwek described Singapore’s court digitisation in four broad phases. Following the introduction of electronic filing, the courts developed end-to-end case management systems for civil and criminal matters. Next, they extended digital services to non-lawyers and self-represented parties, including in small claims, family applications, probate, and divorce proceedings. The fourth phase is the current one: virtual hearings, data integration, and the introduction of generative AI.

Singapore’s Court Digitisation Journey

During his presentation at the CJF, Justice Kwek described one law firm that restricted access to its proprietary AI technology to senior partners, worried that junior lawyers would rely on it rather than do the work themselves. The consequence was the opposite of what they intended. Senior partners rarely do research, so the software went unused. Junior lawyers, who did need it, turned instead to freely available or lower-cost tools online. Tools which had a higher risk of errors than the system the firm had procured at great expense. The lesson Justice Kwek drew was that AI is here whether institutions are ready or not. The question is whether courts govern its use or leave it ungoverned.

Singapore’s courts have adopted a neutral stance towards lawyers and litigants using generative AI. They may use it, but they remain responsible for the output they submit. This neutrality is notable in a landscape where responses to AI have been fragmented and often reactive.

The Challenge of Reliably Governing AI

In the United States, federal judges have issued a patchwork of orders ranging from outright prohibitions in their courtrooms to mandatory certification requirements. These judgements have been driven largely by a wave of cases in which lawyers submitted briefs containing fabricated case citations. In Europe, the EU AI Act (Regulation [EU] 2024/1689) classifies AI used in the administration of justice as high-risk, imposing significant compliance obligations. Against that backdrop, Singapore's approach – permitting its use while holding professionals accountable for its outputs – treats AI as a tool that is here to stay but which needs to be trained and incorporated in an intelligent manner.

Within Singapore, AI has been piloted in small claims settings to assist with translation and case summaries, but Justice Kwek emphasised the risk of relying on a summary that may be wrong. “At least if a human reads it and gets it wrong,” he remarked, “he knows what he did. The AI doesn’t tell you when it’s guessing.”

Educating AI in the Law

Singapore’s own legal research AI began with roughly 60-70% accuracy. Through targeted training on restricted legal materials, it has reached 95%. Even so, the system is built to surface its own uncertainty – flagging where no direct authority exists rather than generating a confident but fabricated answer. It is an example of Singapore’s progressive yet cautious approach to AI, which has included restricting access to source materials, building tools specifically around Singaporean law, comprehensively training users, and placing warnings on AI-generated outputs. The objective is neither to wholeheartedly embrace nor reject AI. It is to ensure that AI assists human judgment without displacing judicial responsibility.

Turning Experience into Practical Learning

While judiciaries in Africa may not wish simply to replicate Singapore’s model due to the differences in institutional realities, resources, and political contexts, it is an example that contains broader lessons that all countries can learn from. The importance of strategy, strong leadership and innovation, and managing institutional resistance are principles that apply wherever courts are trying to modernise.

At the Chandler Institute of Justice, we partner with governments across Africa to strengthen their capacity to design, implement, and sustain reform. In the context of digitisation and the rise of AI in justice systems, we support reform through expert advice, tailored training, and practical tools – helping governments develop their policies and legal frameworks, draft legislation on data protection and AI governance, and equip judges and officials to oversee technology responsibly.

The point is not to introduce technology for its own sake. It is to support institutions to use technology in ways that strengthen decision-making, reduce administrative burdens, and free capacity for the work that matters most: delivering justice to citizens. This takes us closer to creating justice systems that move more efficiently, predictably, and strengthen the foundations on which citizens, businesses, and governments rely.

Singapore’s story is valuable because its starting point was modest but disciplined. A backlog, a small pilot, seven law firms, and strong, decisive leadership. The success with which Singapore has embedded technology into its justice system contains an important lesson: that digital transformation begins before any technology is procured. It begins with the institutional leadership to use that technology well.