Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Aloma Mariam Mukhtar is determined to grab a prominent space in Nigeria’s judicial history. Sworn in as the 13th indigenous Chief Justice of Nigeria in July last year, she has since taken a few decisive steps and made many radical statements worthy of attention. One such statement was made early this week when she declared open a refresher course on judgment writing and delivery organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) for judicial officers nationwide. Judges, she observed, had become the butt of jokes nationwide on account of the decline in quality and quantity of their judgments. “A judge should write judgment in a simple and unambiguous manner such that it leaves no one in doubt as to what the judgment has addressed,” she advised. According to her, some judges wrote judgments either to exhibit their obsession with judicial jargons or to purposely create ambiguities for the mischievous to exploit.
She is probably right, for lawyers and judges have a tendency to immerse themselves in deliberate arcana, sometimes mystifying themselves and getting entangled in complicated verbosity, thereby requiring the services of an impatient senior judge to cut through the maze. But let us hope that in the campaign for simplicity, the renascent Lord Dennings (as in Beswick v. Beswick) would not forsake the profound veneer and logical complexities that have set jurisprudence apart from other less esoteric disciplines and given oomph and meaning to the phrase “my learned friend.” But nothing can detract from the engaging idea Justice Mukhtar tried to communicate to her audience at the NJI workshop: that justice must not only be done, but that it must be seen to be done, with no cumbersomeness of fact, logic or language. In fact her asseveration was in tune with the drastic and unexpected step she took late February under the aegis of the National Judicial Council (NJC) when she approved the sacking of two judges, to wit, Justices Charles Archibong of the Lagos Division of the federal high court and Thomas Naron of the Plateau state high court. The CJN also referred a Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Otunba Kunle Kalejaiye to the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) for disciplinary action.
The public, which the CJN referred to as a barometer for sound judgments, may, however, have made up its mind on just how nearly impossible it is to bring far-reaching reforms to the judiciary, especially because the judiciary is part of a society that has lost its moral compass. The public views the impasse in the reinstatement of Justice Ayo Salami of the Court of Appeal as a better barometer not only of the lack of rectitude of the judicial branch but also a measure of the lack of will of judicial officers to dispense justice in difficult and excruciating circumstances. Shortly after she assumed office, the CJN attempted an activist and moralistic approach to the Salami impasse, like Justice Dahiru Musdapher before her, but met a brick wall in the Jonathan presidency. Justice Mukhtar will probably wisely concentrate on other less controversial areas of sanitising the judiciary, and severely avoid issues that deal with judicial independence.
Though her effort on the Salami case foundered, the CJN at least indicated her admirable perspective on sanitising the judiciary and helping it to regain respect in the estimation of the public. She will press on in battling such malaises as are within her gentle reach, and she will do battle with style and grace. Under her watch, more judges will be made to shape up or ship out, and perhaps the quality of jurisprudence will inch up somewhat. But it is hard to see the quantum of improvements, both in quality and volume, that the CJN expects manifesting soon. This column will back her, as long as she follows her own counsel by giving those accused of indiscretions fair hearing. (Justice Archibong’s supporters, it will be recalled, claimed he was not given fair hearing). But at the risk of being described as a pessimist, Hardball will be unwilling to hazard a guess that the CJN will make a substantial dent on the malfeasances that have undermined the judiciary, for that sector is neither insulated from the rest of the society nor, because of decades of practiced compromise with the system, does it show any eagerness to live, like Caesar’s wife, above suspicion.
