Executive summary
Virtual hearings offer opportunities to improve access to justice, procedural efficiency and cost reduction. Their usefulness nevertheless depends on participants' effective involvement, the integrity of evidence and the security of the technology used. Lawyers play an important role in preparing clients and identifying difficulties that may compromise the exercise of their rights.
The discussion can no longer rely solely on the exceptional pandemic framework. Law No. 8/2024 of 7 June introduced a framework for electronic judicial proceedings. In private arbitration, the agreement, applicable rules and tribunal powers must be considered, while preserving equality and the right to be heard.
This development does not remove the cultural, technological and financial challenges identified in the original study. It shifts the discussion towards implementation: how to conduct a credible and accessible hearing, rather than merely asking whether technology may be used.
Introduction
The use of technology in the administration of justice gained particular importance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Restrictions on movement and institutional operations highlighted the need to ensure continuity in dispute resolution without requiring participants to attend in person in every case.
This article revisits that discussion, updating the legal framework while preserving the study's central concern: technology offers an opportunity to improve access to justice only when it enables effective participation on equal terms and respects procedural safeguards.
The challenge has cultural, legal, technological, financial and security dimensions. Arbitration also requires compatibility between virtual participation, party autonomy and the tribunal's conduct of the proceedings.
1. Challenges of virtual hearings in Mozambique
1.1. Terminology
We use the term 'virtual hearing' to describe a hearing conducted remotely through technological means. 'Remote hearing' may be used in the same sense. The relevant feature is participation from different locations, with communication appropriate to the procedural act concerned.
The terminology should not obscure differences between formats. A telephone examination does not provide the same capabilities as a videoconference. A fully virtual hearing must also be distinguished from a hybrid hearing, in which some participants attend in person.
1.2. Cultural challenges: habits and customs
Changing habits and customs presents a challenge to the implementation of virtual hearings. Citizens need to trust the seriousness of the medium and understand that physical distance does not diminish the respect owed to a procedural act.
Lawyers are particularly well placed to build that confidence, as they are the people with whom citizens interact, discuss matters and consult before attending a hearing. This requires preparation: explaining how the platform works, the rules for participation and how to communicate privately with counsel.
The in-person experience remains a reference point for many participants. Adaptation should therefore combine training and practical support, without assuming that everyone is proficient in digital tools.
1.3. Legal challenges
1.3.1. State courts: the 2024 framework
Law No. 8/2024 of 7 June governs electronic judicial proceedings. It applies to the proceedings and bodies covered by Article 2; it should not automatically be extended to private arbitration.5
Hearings are generally held in person, but may be virtual or hybrid when necessary, with the same legal effects and subject to technical conditions. Articles 25 to 32 govern initiation, access, publicity, formalities, location, safeguards and recording.5
The new legislation changes the starting point of the original analysis. It is no longer appropriate to state generally that virtual court hearings depend solely on earlier exceptions or temporary pandemic measures.
A statutory basis does not mean that every body has the necessary equipment, platforms or support at all times. Each assessment must consider the law, applicable regulations, the nature of the act and the conditions for its performance.
1.3.2. Arbitration and other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
In arbitration, the framework starts with Law No. 11/99 of 8 July, the parties' agreement and, where applicable, the rules of their chosen institution. Procedural flexibility facilitates adaptation of communication methods and hearing formats, without dispensing with participants' safeguards.6
Agreement between the parties on virtual participation provides a clear basis for conducting the proceedings. It may be included in the arbitration agreement or reached later. It should address relevant practical matters, including identification of participants, presentation of documents, interpretation, recording and technical failures.
The issue becomes more sensitive when one party objects to a virtual format. The original study's approach remains relevant: examine the chosen rules and the grounds for objection, seeking agreement where possible. A preference for an in-person hearing differs from an actual inability to participate.
The tribunal should assess whether the objection reveals a difficulty affecting the exercise of procedural rights. Its decision should explain the chosen format and the measures intended to ensure effective participation. Convenience or speed alone do not justify sacrificing equality, the right to be heard or the integrity of evidence.
Mediation and conciliation also require consideration of their own legislation and rules. Technology must preserve the consensual nature of the process and the confidentiality of communications.
1.3.3. The pandemic experience: historical context
The original study examined exceptional pandemic measures, including the policy of prioritising electronic channels in public services. That discussion remained useful in showing that continuity required adaptation and practical conditions.
For the present discussion, however, electronic public services, an individual procedural act performed remotely and an entire hearing must be distinguished. A general instruction on service delivery should not, without further analysis, be treated as unrestricted authorisation for every procedural format.
The exceptional legislation belongs to its historical context. The current legal basis for court hearings must take account of the 2024 framework and other applicable provisions. The original analysis is preserved in the author's file.
1.4. Technological and financial challenges
To be credible, a virtual hearing should take place, as far as possible, in a setting that allows participants to appreciate its seriousness as they would at an in-person hearing.
Videoconferencing is the best way to approximate the in-person experience in a virtual hearing. It allows judges, arbitrators, mediators and conciliators to observe participants' emotions through facial expressions and gestures, and to monitor whether a witness is being coached during testimony.
From the disputing parties' perspective, confidence in the process is also more likely when they can directly observe the conduct of the judge, arbitrator, mediator or conciliator.
Whereas a telephone conversation in which both parties understand each other without substantial difficulty is relatively easy to arrange, videoconferencing involves its own complexities.
A successful videoconference depends on suitable logistical and technological conditions: a reliable internet connection, appropriate software supporting separate virtual rooms and simultaneous interpretation, suitable equipment including high-resolution cameras and an appropriate audio system, among other requirements.
For most individuals and organisations in Mozambique, this is not easy to achieve, given that:
access to reliable internet in Mozambique may be limited by availability and high prices1;
access to technological equipment such as computers with functioning and up-to-date operating systems, high-resolution cameras and quality microphones may be limited;
familiarity with operating technological equipment may be limited, requiring technical assistance.
For most citizens and organisations, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, adapting to virtual hearings therefore requires a substantial financial effort to create the conditions for effective and efficient participation. This raises financial challenges, given that:
Parties to dispute resolution proceedings generally have limited financial resources, which may hinder the purchase of suitable equipment;
Specialist audio and videoconferencing services may be expensive;
Internet with sufficient quality and bandwidth for virtual hearings may be expensive.
While the parties themselves must arrange such facilities in private alternative dispute resolution, in litigation before state courts, court mediation2 and labour disputes handled by COMAL3 the State must provide the legal, procedural and, above all, technological means necessary to conduct virtual hearings.
1.5. Confidentiality and cybersecurity
Virtual participation requires preparation for security and protection of participants' data. Platform access should be restricted to authorised participants; technicians and service providers must understand the applicable confidentiality duties.
The public nature of a court hearing does not mean that its recordings may be disseminated without restriction. In arbitration, authorised participation, recording for procedural purposes and disclosure to third parties must also be distinguished. Each operation requires its own basis and conditions.
Consent should not be presented as a universal requirement for recording. The applicable regime may require it. In arbitration, recording procedures and access to the file must be regulated consistently with the law, the agreement and the chosen rules.
It is advisable to define responsibility for access, storage and retention of records, and procedures for incidents and technical failures. Security also requires attention to each participant's location: a protected connection does not prevent unauthorised third parties from listening to a hearing in an open room.
2. Opportunities of virtual hearings in Mozambique. While virtual hearings present challenges in the Mozambican context, their adoption also offers opportunities and advantages.
Access to justice
Virtual hearings are needed to safeguard access to law and justice when, for any reason, an in-person hearing cannot take place. They allow proceedings to continue, thereby helping to ensure access to law and justice.
In view of the technological and financial difficulties discussed above, access to law and justice through technology can be ensured only if access to the necessary tools is widespread.
In other words, virtual hearings offer an opportunity for the administration of justice only if every participant has access to the necessary conditions without discrimination.
Procedural efficiency
Virtual platforms enable faster and more flexible access to hearings and consequently smoother proceedings. A judge, arbitrator, conciliator or mediator can, for example, hear a person located elsewhere in the country without waiting for their return or for the transmission and receipt of letters of request for judicial assistance.
Recording and transcription tools, where compatible with the applicable framework, can simplify the hearing record4and reduce the hearing's duration.
Cost reduction
Virtual hearings allow participants, including parties, judges, arbitrators, conciliators and mediators, to save on travel, document printing, electricity and other supplies required for an in-person hearing.
Business opportunities
Virtual hearings offer business opportunities in technology and virtual conference management. As noted above, conducting a virtual hearing requires an appropriate platform.
Such a platform may be developed by adapting existing platforms or creating new ones. This provides opportunities for information technology professionals and for lawyers, who can work together to adapt existing platforms to the justice sector or create tools suited to our circumstances.
3. Rules and hearing preparation
A well-conducted virtual hearing requires rules understood by all participants. In state courts, implementing regulations and procedures should give effect to the statutory framework. In arbitration, a procedural order or agreed protocol can organise practical matters.
Matters to regulate include:
1. The duration and breaks of each hearing day.
2. Participation locations, identification of those present and management of virtual rooms.
3. Recording, transcription and interpretation.
4. Procedures for examining witnesses and experts, preventing improper communications during testimony.
5. Presentation and consultation of documents.
6. Private communication between a party and counsel.
7. Responses to connection interruptions, audio failures and access difficulties.
8. Security, retention and access to records.
Advance testing and participant briefings reduce foreseeable difficulties. Preparation should be proportionate to the hearing's complexity, without making technology a new financial or procedural barrier.
Conclusion
Adopting virtual hearings requires more than a platform. It requires suitable rules, technical conditions and participants' confidence. The 2024 legal framework represents an important change for state courts; implementation must ensure that this possibility translates into effective access.
In arbitration, flexibility allows proceedings to be adapted to the dispute's needs. This advantage must be used carefully, respecting party autonomy and the safeguards that confer legitimacy on the decision.
The original study's central idea therefore remains: technology can help make justice more accessible and efficient, provided its use is accompanied by the conditions necessary for a credible, secure and fair hearing.
Notes and references
- According to the Alliance for Affordable Internet, Africa has the world's highest internet prices. See: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/22/africa/internet-affordability-africa/index.html and https://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/2020/
- Conducted by the Mediation Services in Judicial Courts, which operate within Provincial Judicial Courts and depend on them administratively and financially: see Article 4(1) of Resolution No. 1/CJ/2017 of 25 August.
- Conducted by the Labour Mediation and Arbitration Commission, a public-law body funded primarily through the State Budget: see Article 49(1)(a) of Decree No. 30/2016 of 27 July.
- Under Article 20 of Law No. 3/2017 (Electronic Transactions Law), a data message or electronic information has the same legal effect as a physical message or information, provided it meets the legal requirements and formalities applicable to physical documents.
- Law No. 8/2024 of 7 June, particularly Articles 2 and 25 to 32. Official reference: https://www.inm.gov.mz/pt-br/content/br-n%C2%BA-111-de-070624-boletim-da-rep%C3%BAblica-i-serie . Text of the Official Gazette provided by the Supreme Court: https://www.ts.gov.mz/leis/ . Editorial check on 12 October 2026: no later regulation specifically implementing this law was identified in the institutional sources consulted. This does not certify that no other instruments exist; application in a particular case requires checking current provisions and instructions.
- Law No. 11/99 of 8 July. Institutional source: https://www.cacm.org.mz/?page_id=57 .