It is a key step towards promoting and enabling the use of ADR as an alternative method of

conflict settlement in our country. The National ADR Policy's implementation and monitoring
are the Council's primary responsibilities, and they are crucial to ensuring that ADR procedures
are standardized and that the policy's goals are met.
The effectiveness of the National ADR Policy depends on the Council's ability to carry out its
planned duties, which include advancing public understanding of ADR, creating institutional and
legal frameworks that support the ADR industry, and encouraging the expansion of ADR
practice areas. The amount of funding given to the Council and its capacity will determine if it is
successful in its ability to collaborate with other stakeholders, including the government, private
sector, and civil society.

It will also strive to facilitate the continued development of the institutional and legal structures
that support the ADR sector and its practice areas. This suggests an understanding that strong
institutional and legal frameworks are necessary for effective ADR systems to operate at their
optimal level. The National ADR Policy can aid in the development of a comprehensive and
dependable ADR infrastructure in Kenya by actively striving to improve and modify existing
frameworks.

The proposal makes no specific mention of the National ADR Policy's employee composition or
selection procedure. Legally professionals, ADR practitioners, civil society executives, and other
pertinent stakeholders must all be represented on the council. To increase public confidence in
the National ADR Policy's decision-making, the selection process must be transparent and
inclusive.

Additionally, even if the proposal places a strong emphasis on promoting ADR, it is equally
necessary to make sure that the standards and quality of ADR services are upheld. The National
ADR Policy should set up guidelines and processes to evaluate the skill and professionalism of
ADR practitioners and give people an avenue to voice objections or grievances about their
actions. This will protect the legitimacy and efficiency of ADR procedures.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures could stand to gain from inclusion of
provisions for ongoing study, assessment, and improvement. The National Dispute Resolution
Council should be given the authority to keep tabs on the application of ADR mechanisms,
compile knowledge about them and to assess how they have an impact on justice access,
efficiency, and fairness. This will make it achievable to come to judgements based on the proof
at hand and to recognize areas in need of adjustment.

Additionally, the Council's formation alone is insufficient to advance ADR use in Kenya. It is
crucial to educate the general public about ADR, its advantages, and how it functions. It is
important to provide training and capacity building programs to give solicitors, arbitrators, and
mediators the knowledge and abilities they need to resolve disputes successfully through ADR.
In order to make sure that ADR functions in accordance with ethical standards and values, a
framework of regulation that monitors the practice should be created and put into action.

In conclusion, it is important to support the initiative to create a National Dispute Resolution

Council for the ADR industry in Kenya because it will contribute to advancing the use of ADR
on a wider scale. However, it is crucial to address issues with independence, composition, quality
control, and research in order to assure its efficacy. The NDRC has the potential to greatly
contribute to the creation of a strong ADR system in Kenya, expanding access to justice and
improving dispute resolution results, by carefully taking into account these crucial factors.