The National Judicial Policy Committee has attributed the delay in the trial of some ex-governors, ministers and other Politically-Exposed Persons (PEPs) to inadequate judges, dearth of trained investigators and prosecutors.
Of about 80 high profile cases, 16 involve former governors and two former ministers. The ex-governors and ministers are: James Ibori, Senator Saminu Turaki, Adebayo Alao-Akala, Gbenga Daniel, Timipre Sylva, Michael Botmang, Joshua Dariye, Boni Haruna, and Rashidi Ladoja.
Others are Jolly Nyame, Attahiru Bafarawa, Adamu Abdullahi, Ayo Fayose, Chimaroke Nnamani, Orji Uzor Kalu, Femi Fani-Kayode and Prof. Babalola Borishade.
The panel said there was a great concern about the capacity of the judicial system to dispose of cases as speedily as possible.
According to the committee, there are 4,000 judges to 160 million Nigerians. The ratio is one judge to 40,000 people. The remedy, in the committee’s view is the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms.
These observations are contained in the 36-page report of the committee, which was obtained by our correspondent. The nine-man panel, headed by the Chief Judge of Kaduna , Justice Rahila Hadea Cudjoe, was set up on October 13, last year by the immediate past Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, in his capacity as the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the National Judicial Institute (NJI).
The committee was mandated by the NJI to prepare a National Judicial Policy for the country. Other members of the panel are the Chief Judge of Rivers State , Justice I. N. Ndu; the Chief Judge, Federal Capital Territory , Justice L. H. Gummi; the Chief Judge of Ebonyi, Justice A.N. Nwankwo; the Chief Judge of Borno State, Justice Kashim Zannah; the Chief Judge of Oyo State, Justice B.O. Adeniji; the Chief Judge of Kogi State, Justice N. Ajanah; the Chief Judge, Federal High Court, Justice Ibrahim Auta; and NJI Secretary, Justice Phoebe M. Ayua.
In the report, the committee expressed worry over delay in high-profile and other cases. The report reads in part: “The calibre of individuals, where it is a criminal matter, may also qualify a case as “high-profile”, for instance, some of the cases involving former governors who are facing trials on corruption and economic crimes charges preferred against them by either the ICPC or the EFCC.
“In recent times, there has been so much disquiet about the delay in having these cases heard and disposed of ‘within a reasonable time’.
“There have been calls for the establishment of separate or Special Courts to deal with corruption and economic crime cases, which invariably fall within the category of high-profile cases, in order to ensure their expeditious disposal.
“The causes of delay in the trial of cases are many. They include the low number of Judicial Officers-about 4,000 in relation to the teeming Nigerian population of about 160million people; that is a ratio of one judge to 40,000 people.
“Others are inadequacy of infrastructure and modern Information and Communication Technology equipment in the courtrooms and offices to facilitate the judicial process; not-so-conducive working environment; delay tactics by counsel; and dearth of trained and seasoned investigators and prosecutors etc.
“There is great concern about the capacity of the judicial system to hear and dispose of cases as speedily as possible. It does not matter whether it is a corruption case or economic crime matter involving “high-profile” persons who are “Politically Exposed Persons”, or the “Ordinary man on the street”.
“The integrity and dependability of the judicial system is often tested on how fast cases can be heard and disposed of. “The ability of any country to attract Foreign Direct Investment is largely dependent on the efficiency of its legal and judicial system.”
The committee made some recommendations on how to decongest the courts. They include appointment of more judicial officers, adequate funding of the Judiciary, especially at the state level; provision of proper infrastructure and ICT equipment; and having conducive working environment for judges to complement improved manpower in each jurisdiction.
Other recommendations include that judges should be proactive in dealing with interlocutory applications. Besides, they should stop bending to the whims and caprices of counsel placing priority on criminal matters; and Judiciary should encourage its partners, such as the police, Ministry of Justice, the Prisons, the Nigeria Legal Aid Council and others to play their roles.
The committee requested the adoption of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
The report said: “It has been acknowledged all over the world that adversarial litigation should no longer be the only means of resolving disputes. Congestion in court dockets, lack of manpower and resources in addition to delay, excessive cost and overtly technical procedures are all symptoms calling for the need for better options and approaches to dispute resolution.
“Speedy disposal of cases and delivery of justice is a sine qua non for an enduring agenda for efficient administration of justice.
“There is, therefore, urgent need to supplement the current infrastructure of courts by means of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms.
“Unlike litigation, ADR mechanisms provide access to justice in an affordable, reliable, and quick manner.
“ADR is not an attempt to supplant litigation but to support it, and thereby provide greater access to justice to the citizenry-there should be many doors to justice, not just one.
“The concept of the Multi-Door Court house should, therefore, be embraced by the Judiciary in Nigeria . ADR is, however, an alternative and a very good alternative but it remains an alternative. Certain cases can only be tried by the courts.”
On offer of gifts to judges by the Executive and the Legislature, the committee retained the present Code of Conduct banning judges from accepting such.
The report added: “The Judiciary in Nigeria is quite advanced in judicial ethics as there are two Codes of Conduct in existence, one for judicial officers and the other for court employees. Indeed, the Code of Conduct for judicial officers was in existence even before the Bangalore principles. It was first published in 1998.
“The two Codes of Conduct with the minor amendment discouraging acceptance of gifts from other arms of government are adequate. Compliance with their provisions shall be mandatory.”
But the panel came up with a new policy barring petitioners and judicial officers from leaking or publishing allegations of misconduct in the media before they are considered.
It, however, said any Judicial disciplinary body could publish its findings or release same to the public afterwards.
It shall be the policy of the Judiciary on petitions that allegations of misconduct against Judicial Officers or other employees of the Judiciary shall not be leaked or published in the media.
Where complaints or allegations against judicial officers and court employees are submitted for investigation, the petitioner or petitioners shall be made to give an undertaking not to do anything to prejudice investigation or actions that may be taken.
The institutions of the Judiciary concerned with investigation and implementation of decisions taken on such complaints shall be obliged to cease further action where such petitions or complaints are leaked or discussed in the media.
Where such a leakage is occasioned after the submission of a petition, then all investigations on the petition shall be suspended; the leakage investigated and if it is from the petitioner or through other parties known to such a petitioner, then such a petition should be discarded.
“Where such leakage is occasioned prior to the presentation of the petition and the source of the leakage is found to be the petitioner or through other parties known to and connected with the petitioner, then such petition shall not be accepted, upon submission, by the appropriate disciplinary body.
“Upon conclusion of any investigation, the judicial disciplinary bodies may allow public disclosure of their findings, subject to following the proper channels for such disclosure.”
