Abstract
<title>Abstract</title> <p>Introduction: Judicial legitimacy is dependent on public trust in judiciary, especially in post-conflict justice systems where courts are frequently subjected to allegations of lack of transparency, fairness, independence, and institutional credibility. In Mogadishu, the public's perception of the judiciary is often influenced by secondhand sources such as media reports, social narratives, community conversations, and individual experiences. This study explores the potential for changes in citizens' perceptions of courts from hearsay to observation, and the impact of such changes on perceptions of procedural fairness and public trust using live streaming. Methods: The study was of a qualitative comparative interview design. Twenty adult residents of Mogadishu were interviewed, 10 of whom had viewed the live streamed court proceedings and 10 who had not. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data, which involved deductive coding based on literature on judicial transparency, procedural justice, digital open justice, and public trust and inductive coding based on the participants' accounts. Findings: Five major themes emerged: livestreaming as a change from hearsay to observation; procedural fairness as visible courtroom conduct; livestreaming as a conditional trust-building mechanism; non-watchers' position between distrust and curiosity; and livestreaming as an accountability tool and a source of risk. Those who viewed the proceedings on live stream rated the courts based on observable factors like judicial neutrality, professionalism of lawyers, presentation of evidence, courtroom discipline, and equal treatment. Non-watchers were more likely to form their views based on indirect sources, the general reputation of judicial institutions, and general issues of corruption, delays, political influence, clan influence, and unequal access to justice. Discussion: The results indicate that live-streaming court proceedings do not necessarily lead to greater public trust. Its effect is very much dependent on what citizens observe and how they interpret the conduct of the proceedings. Livestreaming can help build trust when courts are neutral, professional, clear, fair, and respectful of legal processes. It can also erode trust if it is inconsistent, poorly represented, biased, not communicated, or compromises privacy. The study is a contribution to the literature on digital justice, procedural justice, and judicial legitimacy in post-conflict contexts because it demonstrates how livestreaming is a means by which transparency and procedural fairness are brought to the public's attention. It should therefore be regarded as a carefully controlled transparency process, not as free public broadcasting.</p>