A Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Dr Wale Babalakin, yesterday faulted the proposed appointment of SANs and other lawyers to the Supreme Court.
“Such a privilege is for very exceptional people, and there are very few around,” he told reporters.
The Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen had invited the Bar to nominate lawyers for appointment as Supreme Court justices, following which the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) shortlisted nine persons, including six SANs.
But Babalakin, who delivered the 10th memorial lecture in honour of Kehinde Sofola (SAN), said the legal system should rather be structured in a manner that only very gifted lawyers aspire to judicial appointment, adding that it is the only way to provide justice according to law.
Babalakin believes lawyers who are appointed straight to the Supreme Court come once in a life time, and are of exceptional intellect.
He said such appointments are not meant for “pedestrian advocates”, adding that it would kill the moral of brilliant judges at the lower bench.
He said: “The fact that you are a good lawyer doesn’t necessarily mean you will be so exceptional as to be a Supreme Court Judge.
“The protagonists of this proposal mentioned some names that have made it to the Supreme Court directly from the Bar. Dr Taslim Elias’s curriculum vitae speaks for itself.
“Another judge that was appointed directly to the Supreme Court in another jurisdiction is Mr. Justice Jonathan Sumption. Jonathan Sumption took a first class degree in Medieval History from Oxford University.
“These are the calibre of men who can make a claim to a direct appointment to the Supreme Court of any country. They come once in a life time.
“This hop, step and jump is not meant for every pedestrian advocate who has nothing to show than a prolonged stay in the courts with relative lack of distinction.
“If you are considered so gifted, an exception can be made for a few appointments to the Courts of Appeal where, if you now distinguish yourself, you can be given an accelerated promotion to the Supreme Court.”
Babalakin spoke on the theme: The role of the legal profession in nation building: the Nigerian context.
Recalling the judiciary’s ‘glorious years’, Babalakin, called to the Bar 35 years ago, said the law profession he knew growing up was very organised, cases proceeded on the dates they were scheduled for, there were hardly any adjournments, objections were raised and resolved immediately, and there was no adjournment to consider any interlocutory issue.
He said judges were so knowledgeable and so versatile that lawyers knew they could not play any delay tactics, while criminal cases were disposed of within a month of commencing trial.
Babalakin said judges were also well paid. According to him, in 1964, the salary of a High Court Judge in Western Nigeria was £3,400 per annum, higher than that of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, which was £2,700 per annum.
The SAN said the military intervention in governance was “an unmitigated disaster in the development of the Nigerian legal system and the Legal profession,” adding that it culminated in the retirement of exceptional judges in 1975 without due process, a development he described as “the greatest set back to the legal profession”.
On the way forward, Babalakin said the study of law must be made a serious business, with the improvement of the quality of teaching, which, to him, “is simply not good enough.”
He said appointment to the Bench must be based on merit rather than federal character, as law is essentially a profession that requires very serious intellectual capacity.
For instance, Babalakin said the current members of the Supreme Court of England are either graduates of Oxford University or Cambridge, while those of the United States Supreme Court are all graduates of America’s best universities.
“These countries realise that you cannot place the judicial process in the hands of less qualified people. As I have often repeated, there is no difference between an incompetent judge and a corrupt judge. The effect of incompetence and corruption on the legal system is the same; that is injustice,” he said.
On delays, Babalakin said frivolous adjournments must be discouraged, while courts must not adjourn any case for the convenience of counsel.
The courts, he said, must be ready to proceed with matters.
Prosecution of criminal cases, he added, should only take place after a very thorough investigation and review of the evidence by very seasoned legal practitioners, as, according to him, poor prosecution of cases have considerable negative effect on the legal system.
On corruption in the judiciary, Babalakin said disciplining of judicial officers must be done in a very transparent manner.
He called for a system that is capable of showing up an incompetent or corrupt judge “without much ado.”
Activist-lawyer Femi Falana (SAN), who was a discussant, said unlike some senior lawyers, the late Sofola never associated with corrupt judges.
He said the Bar has also not done enough to help ensure the observance of the rule of law.
Falana recalled that the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) under the late Alao Aka-Bashorun once boycotted the courts to force the military to obey orders.
He said the NBA in recent times has been silent when the authorities violate the rule of law and abuse human rights.
Falana said instead of advising governors to obey the laws or court orders, Attorneys-General advise them to disobey them because cases in court will not be decided during their tenures.
“When you do that, you subvert the rule of law,” the SAN said.
He also criticised SANs who adopt new delay strategies of endless cross-examination of witnesses, saying: “We need to call our colleagues to order before they destroy the judiciary.”
Falana said everything must be done to restore faith in the judiciary, adding that the public has lost confidence in it that traditional rulers and the police now resolve more cases than courts.
The late Sofola had a celebrated legal career for over 50 years before he passed on in 2007 at 83.
