The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Access to justice

  • Case for girls, women’s access to justice

    Case for girls, women’s access to justice

    To build a future that works for everyone, including women and girls, there must be reimagining access to justice, not as a privilege or afterthought, but as a fundamental promise of nationhood, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, Helen Moronkeji Ogunwumiju, has said.

    She spoke in Lagos at an event to mark the silver jubilee of the Women Advocates Research and Documentation Centre (WARDC).

    Its theme was: “Breaking barriers and building futures with women and girls in Nigeria.”

    Justice Ogunwumiju made case for Nigerian women and girls, stating that they should not be made to relive trauma repeatedly when seeking justice from sexual and gender-based violence.

    The keynote speaker lamented that despite constitutional guarantees, legislative advances and institutional reforms, women and girls in Nigeria continue to face deep-rooted barriers in accessing justice.

    She said that to end practices that force women and girls to repeatedly narrate their painful experiences while seeking redress, the judge held that such processes amount to secondary victimisation rather than justice.

    “Women must have somewhere or someplace where they can ask for help and they don’t need to explain their pain over and over and over again,” she said.

    Read Also: Tech start-ups in Nigeria, others raise $19.7b

    Speaking at the event, the Speaker of the Gombe State House of Assembly, Ahmed Abubakar Muhammad Luggerewo, reiterated the commitment of the legislature in strengthening laws and policies that would expand access to quality healthcare and protect the rights of women, girls and underserved populations.

    In her Speech, the Founding Director, WARDC, Dr. Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi, said that the Center was not imagined as another organisation that produced reports while women continued to bleed quietly, but was conceived as a movement institution; one that would meet women where they were, translate law into power, and turn pain into political demand.

    Dr. Akiyode-Afolabi, also noted that oppression does not live only in urban areas, but also thrives in rural communities, informal settlements, markets, religious spaces, and households.

    “That understanding led to the establishment of 42 paralegal communities across Nigeria, where ordinary women were trained to document cases, challenge abuse, and claim justice within their own environments,” she noted.

    Lauding WARDC for its feats over the years, the former Chairman Board of Trustees, WARDC, Professor Akin Oyebode, advocated for inclusion of women in governance.

    “We have not  achieved the ultimate in terms of full recognition for the Nigerian women because we are still at the throes of passing a law that would create more seats for the women in the National assembly. Let us have commensurate numbers of women in our legislatures, because we all came to this world through women. If you don’t have women as your mother, you have them as your sisters, spouses and colleagues; so in a way, we are celebrating ourselves by coming to share fellowship with WARDC,” Oyebode said.

    The event also featured the unveiling of a new book authored by the Founder of WARDC, Dr. Abiola Akiyode-Afolabi, titled Voice For Change Women’s Rights Activism in Nigeria (2000 – 2025), which was anchored by the Former Ekiti State First Lady, Erelu Bisi Adeleye-Fayemi and reviewed by Ijeoma Thomas-Odia.

  • Access to Justice faults travel ban order

    A rights group, the Access to Justice (A2Justice), has faulted the presidential executive order barring 50 high profile Nigerians from travelling abroad.

    It is of the view that the directive is “unconstitutional”.

    A2Justice, in a statement by its Director Mr Joseph Otteh, said the directive was “an invidious effort to run a dictatorship on the back of a constitutional democracy”.

    The Federal Government released a list of 50 Nigerians barred from foreign travel through a Presidential Executive Order (PEO).

    Among them are those currently facing trial for corruption charges.

    A2Justice said while it supports efforts to fight corruption in the most vigorous way possible, the PEO is an unconstitutional overreach of the executive powers of government.

    The group added: “It usurps legislative and judicial powers, and particularly emasculates the powers of courts to determine cases against those named in the PEO and exercise its’ inherent jurisdiction to control conditions related to how under-trial (accused) persons exercise their rights to liberty and movement.

    “The PEO is also a gratuitous piece of dangerous precedent that opens the door to an uncontrollable dictatorship; it can be used arbitrarily and vindictively to fight and muzzle political opposition, and promote wholly politically partisan objectives.

    “It is unquestionably anti-democratic and a veiled snare for citizens’ rights. It is also legally warrantless.”

    The government claimed that a judgment on the case involving PEO 6 gives it authority to bar the named persons, but A2Justice disagreed.

    “This is so very untrue: the judgment clearly required the government to implement PEO 6 in a way that is consistent with the rule of law.

    “The court ruled that the government (Attorney-General) could not block, freeze or confiscate any funds or assets without an order of court!

    “If the government cannot take property without an order of court, how could it legitimately bar persons (presumed innocent by the law), from exercising their rights to liberty and movement without an order of court?”

    Access to Justice urged Federal Government to immediately rescind “this obnoxious Executive Order”.

    “In its stead, we ask for Presidential Executive Orders that mandate all persons and authorities, in line with the Constitution, to obey all orders and judgments of courts immediately, release all persons ordered by courts to be set free, as well as pay reasonable living (minimum) wages to all workers!,” A2Justice said.

     

     

  • ‘How NJC violates guidelines on judges’ appointment’

    The National Judicial Council (NJC) has been accused of violating its guidelines for appointment of high court judges.

    Among others, the NJC Judicial Appointment Guidelines 2014 provides that available vacancies be published before any judge is appointed.

    A human rights group, the Access to Justice (A2J), on Monday said the guidelines were not complied with in the appointment of three new judges for the Lagos State High Court.

    “Our research showed that the Lagos State Judicial Service Commission failed to publicise the judicial vacancies on notice boards of both the High Courts and Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) branches, and on its website.

    “There was no call or public notice whatsoever requesting an expression of interest from suitable candidates on the Lagos State Judiciary’s website, on the notice boards of high court divisions, or on the notice boards of the NBA branches,” the group said.

    It added that there was no letter to NBA chairmen calling for candidates’ nomination, nor were the names of those nominated sent to NBA for comments as provided in the guidelines.

    “Access to Justice now invites the NJC to independently investigate claims suggesting that the guidelines were flouted in the recruitment of new judges of the Lagos State High Court, and insists on the observance of due diligence in future judicial appointments at both state and federal levels,” the group said.

     

  • Access to justice: The challenges

    Access to justice: The challenges

    Access to justice in any society is critical and fundamental. Indeed it is not only the most basic requirement of any system of justice or the most basic human rights of any system that purports to guarantee legal rights but also the hallmark of any sane and civilised society.

    In recent times I have had cause to reflect on not just access to justice in our country but on the quality of justice available to litigants or persons seeking any justifiable remedies in our justice delivery system. My concern is borne out of my conviction that officers in the temple of justice, the constituency to which I belong whether functioning as judicial officers or law officers including legal practitioners ought to strive not only at delivering their services in their capacity as Judges and Lawyers or any such nomenclature but ensuring always that they remain jurists. The distinction between a judge/lawyer and a jurist is fundamental and critical in the search for not only access to justice but access to quality justice; the end result of any result oriented and civilised society.

    But first of all, we must be clear about what we mean by the concept of ‘Access to Justice’ in the context of our own environment. Access to justice will not mean just access to lawyers and courts. It is much more broader than this as it encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that whatever rights we seek to protect are meaningless unless those rights can be enforced with minimal constraints to the aggrieved persons and under circumstances ensuring that all manner of people are treated fairly according to the law and are able to get appropriate redress in circumstances when they are treated unfairly. It is in this context that one would say that there is no access to justice where citizens especially the marginalized groups not only conceive the system as frightening, or alien or in circumstances where citizens have no lawyers either because of inadequate resources to access them, or where individuals lack access to information or knowledge of their rights or where the system is fundamentally weak in delivering justice to the citizens.

    Consequently, access to justice entails normative legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counsel, adjudication, enforcement and civil society oversight amongst others.

    Fundamental rights, civil liberties and supremacy of the rule of law prescribing vital checks and balances in any society are realistic ideals but would in themselves be meaningless without access to justice or the practical means of understanding and enforcing the laws of the land without strings.

    There is however the argument that the major challenge in Nigeria today is not just access to justice but what learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Queens Counsel, Prof Fidelis Oditah described in another forum as ‘exit from justice’. I cannot agree more with this cerebral scholar given the constraints and obstacles confronting the justice delivery system in our country today. These include long delays in the adjudicatory process, long adjournments of proceedings, over reliance on technicalities, collapsing infrastructure, corruption in the system, congestion in courts and prisons, poverty of knowledge, culture of impunity and declining confidence of the citizenry in the efficacy and efficiency of the administration of justice.

    The foregoing raises grave concern for all stakeholders in the administration of justice imposing grave responsibilities on all to do something before the system collapses on our heads leading to anarchy and lawlessness. What therefore needs to be done? I propose the following:

    The system should guarantee equal access to justice and ensure that the quality of justice satisfies the aspirations of our people in the context of civilized norms and practices including international standards and models.

    We need to address barriers to both quantity and quality of justice.

    We need to strengthen the capacity of our justice delivery system including address issues of welfare packages and conditions in which justice is delivered in our country.

    We need to enhance physical access to justice including guaranteeing the luxury of justice to citizens through provision of legal aid to the citizens.

    We need to fund the justice delivery system by ensuring the independence and autonomy of the judiciary.

    We need to strengthen and promote legal awareness to the citizens.

    We need to strengthen civil society organisation as the foundation of promoting access to justice.

    We need to recognise that increase access to justice depends on public confidence which should not be allowed to wane or else anarchy looms.

    We need to support the enforcement of remedies and ensure that such remedies are adequate and commensurate with the nature of the offence.

    We need to encourage procedural fairness and equal application of the law to all manner of people without discrimination including facilitating transparency in all judicial processes.

    We need to increase the knowledge and professionalisation of justice personnel to dispense justice.

    These and more need to be done very quickly to guarantee access to justice and forestall exit from justice: where necessary, reforms must be undertaken. There is no excuse whatsoever why any litigant cannot be assured of justice within six months. There is also no reason why trials in some cases cannot take place from day to day. Punitive actions should be visited on all categories of professionals who by acts or omission are engaged in the subversion of justice in our land.

    Today, public confidence in the justice delivery system is waning. Trust is in gross deficit. Indiscipline is everywhere, corruption now rules our land. Integrity is a scarce commodity; truth is becoming a major casualty in all of these. We need to do something to arrest this decay and the culture of impunity that seems to have been promoted in our country as an article of faith.

    The time to do that is now and every stakeholder in the administration of justice must come on board. It is either you ship in or you ship out.

    Our country is bigger than any other interests.

  • Access to justice: The challenges

    Access to justice: The challenges

    Access to justice in any society is critical and fundamental. Indeed it is not only the most basic requirement of any system of justice or the most basic human rights of any system that purports to guarantee legal rights but also the hallmark of any sane and civilised society.

    In recent times I have had cause to reflect on not just access to justice in our country but on the quality of justice available to litigants or persons seeking any justifiable remedies in our justice delivery system. My concern is borne out of my conviction that officers in the temple of justice, the constituency to which I belong whether functioning as judicial officers or law officers including legal practitioners ought to strive not only at delivering their services in their capacity as Judges and Lawyers or any such nomenclature but ensuring always that they remain jurists. The distinction between a judge/lawyer and a jurist is fundamental and critical in the search for not only access to justice but access to quality justice; the end result of any result oriented and civilised society.

    But first of all, we must be clear about what we mean by the concept of ‘Access to Justice’ in the context of our own environment. Access to justice will not mean just access to lawyers and courts. It is much more broader than this as it encompasses a recognition that everyone is entitled to the protection of the law and that whatever rights we seek to protect are meaningless unless those rights can be enforced with minimal constraints to the aggrieved persons and under circumstances ensuring that all manner of people are treated fairly according to the law and are able to get appropriate redress in circumstances when they are treated unfairly. It is in this context that one would say that there is no access to justice where citizens especially the marginalized groups not only conceive the system as frightening, or alien or in circumstances where citizens have no lawyers either because of inadequate resources to access them, or where individuals lack access to information or knowledge of their rights or where the system is fundamentally weak in delivering justice to the citizens.

    Consequently, access to justice entails normative legal protection, legal awareness, legal aid and counsel, adjudication, enforcement and civil society oversight amongst others.

    Fundamental rights, civil liberties and supremacy of the rule of law prescribing vital checks and balances in any society are realistic ideals but would in themselves be meaningless without access to justice or the practical means of understanding and enforcing the laws of the land without strings.

    There is however the argument that the major challenge in Nigeria today is not just access to justice but what learned Senior Advocate of Nigeria and Queens Counsel, Prof Fidelis Oditah described in another forum as ‘exit from justice’. I cannot agree more with this cerebral scholar given the constraints and obstacles confronting the justice delivery system in our country today. These include long delays in the adjudicatory process, long adjournments of proceedings, over reliance on technicalities, collapsing infrastructure, corruption in the system, congestion in courts and prisons, poverty of knowledge, culture of impunity and declining confidence of the citizenry in the efficacy and efficiency of the administration of justice.

    The foregoing raises grave concern for all stakeholders in the administration of justice imposing grave responsibilities on all to do something before the system collapses on our heads leading to anarchy and lawlessness. What therefore needs to be done? I propose the following:

    The system should guarantee equal access to justice and ensure that the quality of justice satisfies the aspirations of our people in the context of civilized norms and practices including international standards and models.

    We need to address barriers to both quantity and quality of justice.

    We need to strengthen the capacity of our justice delivery system including address issues of welfare packages and conditions in which justice is delivered in our country.

    We need to enhance physical access to justice including guaranteeing the luxury of justice to citizens through provision of legal aid to the citizens.

    We need to fund the justice delivery system by ensuring the independence and autonomy of the judiciary.

    We need to strengthen and promote legal awareness to the citizens.

    We need to strengthen civil society organisation as the foundation of promoting access to justice.

    We need to recognise that increase access to justice depends on public confidence which should not be allowed to wane or else anarchy looms.

    We need to support the enforcement of remedies and ensure that such remedies are adequate and commensurate with the nature of the offence.

    We need to encourage procedural fairness and equal application of the law to all manner of people without discrimination including facilitating transparency in all judicial processes.

    We need to increase the knowledge and professionalisation of justice personnel to dispense justice.

    These and more need to be done very quickly to guarantee access to justice and forestall exit from justice: where necessary, reforms must be undertaken. There is no excuse whatsoever why any litigant cannot be assured of justice within six months. There is also no reason why trials in some cases cannot take place from day to day. Punitive actions should be visited on all categories of professionals who by acts or omission are engaged in the subversion of justice in our land.

    Today, public confidence in the justice delivery system is waning. Trust is in gross deficit. Indiscipline is everywhere, corruption now rules our land. Integrity is a scarce commodity; truth is becoming a major casualty in all of these. We need to do something to arrest this decay and the culture of impunity that seems to have been promoted in our country as an article of faith.

    The time to do that is now and every stakeholder in the administration of justice must come on board. It is either you ship in or you ship out.

    Our country is bigger than any other interests.