NASS should expedite action on Tinubu’s proposed bill to increase Court of Appeal justices from 70 to 110
Last week, President Bola Tinubu sent a bill to the Senate seeking an amendment to the Court of Appeal Act, 2004, to increase the number of the Justices of Court of Appeal to 110. In the accompanying letter, the president said “The bill seeks to increase the number of justices of the Court of Appeal from 70 to 110, and provide clarification of judicial structure and seniority.”
The move came barely two years after the president appointed the full complement of 21 Justices of the Supreme Court, for the first time, under the 1999 constitution (as amended).
He said the bill also “provides for the conduct of proceedings of the Court of Appeal through electronic and audio means, and the establishment of an…Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre within the Court of Appeal, where appellate matters may be referred for settlement.”
Furthermore, “The bill also seeks to update terminology and definitions within the principal act, including the recognition of virtual hearings and modern correctional nomenclature.”
The bill will “consolidate interpretative provisions to ensure clarity, consistency, and alignment with the current legal and institutional framework.”
We consider the proposed bill very timely, more so as the Tinubu administration pushes forward its plan for a $1 trillion economy. No doubt, as the national economy grows, business disputes will also arise, and the duration for litigating disputes will further elongate.
Again, with Nigeria’s population burgeoning, inter-personal disputes would also increase, and the number of justices of the appeal court needs to grow, to match the new population.
With the projection that Nigeria would become the third most populous country by 2050, the proposal for new justices makes sense.
We also note that the number of years spent to hear and determine appeal cases are quite long, sometimes as long as 10 years or more. Of note, some states do not have Court of Appeal within their jurisdiction, while those that have are overburdened.
In some jurisdictions which serve more than one state, the courts do not sit, sometimes for years, because there are no justices to form a quorum. The Court of Appeal serving heavy commercial areas are usually overworked, and when the drag gets too burdensome, justices are drafted from other jurisdictions to treat cases pending for long period of time.
Generally, we do not think that cases should spend more than five years from the high courts to the Supreme Court. The idea of front-loading documents at the high courts is to reduce the time needed to deal with any dispute. At the appellate courts, which deal essentially with documentary evidence, the delay associated with appeal cases should only be determined by the availability of justices. If the documents are fully filed, it should take less than a year for the appeal case to be dispensed with.
The current instances where cases are adjourned to two years or even more, is unacceptable. In many instances, the original litigants die before a case is dispensed with. Where for some reason the appellate court directs that the matter should be returned to the high court for retrial, such cases may last for three decades. In such cases, the witnesses may have died, and where they are alive, may have forgotten the facts as happened in the cases.
We earnestly look forward to a reversal of these trends in our appellate courts.
Another interesting aspect of the proposed bill is the provision for ADR mechanism. That innovation is quite commendable, as it would help decongest the court dockets. ADR provides opportunity for parties to resolve their dispute by themselves, in a way that every party wins something. A court-integrated ADR, which has become common in many jurisdictions across the world, would add practical alternatives in the dispensation of justice.
The advantages of ADR are enormous, and, with the benefit of hindsight, after passing through lower courts, parties may grab mediation with enthusiasm.
The other great innovation in the bill is the introduction of virtual hearing which would enable practitioners to deal with their cases from any part of the world. A situation where parties can file their cases electronically and have their lawyers argue their cases virtually would reduce the time and cost for litigants.
Of course, the ease of doing business includes the ease of getting cases dispensed with by the courts. When an investor is conducting due diligence on where to invest, the judicial system of every potential investment haven is scrutinised.
So, when the judicial system is strengthened, it adds value to the economic potential of the country, as a country of choice for investors. Since disputes are inevitable in the business world, the efficiency of the courts are important for a nation determined to increase its economic potential. The Court of Appeal which stands between the Federal High Courts, the state high courts and other specialised courts and the Supreme Court, requires all that it can get to be effective and efficient.
Read Also: New book proffers solutions to surmounting Nigeria’s problems
It needs to be noted that many cases stop at the Court of Appeal, which is more accessible than the Supreme Court. There are also cases which terminate statutorily at the Court of Appeal. They include election petition cases as concern the legislators. Also, there are cases which require the leave of the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court before they can be appealed on, from the Court of Appeal. That further explains why the number of the Justices of the Court of Appeal needs to be further increased.
We hope that plans are also afoot to provide for the welfare of the justices to be appointed. Such matters as to their residence, mobility and office facilities must be made ready while the legislators are working on the bill to increase their numbers.
Those facilities should be ready before the appointments are made. When the newly appointed justices have to find answers to their needs, they may get help from dangerous quarters, and such relationship may haunt their performance later.
The duty of a justice of any court is very demanding. It also exposes them to temptation. In choosing those to be elevated, when the amendment is completed, the National Judicial Council must bear in mind the challenges associated with the office of a justice of a court.
To be elevated to a higher court, the candidates must have good health, show competence and have no propensity for corrupt enrichment. Those who have the responsibility to appoint the justices must have the larger interest of the nation in mind, while dispensing that responsibility.
The Tinubu administration has shown determination to recalibrate the nation’s judicial system; we commend that effort. In 2023, it appointed 11 Justices to the Supreme Court, to ensure the full complement of the court. The administration has also increased the remuneration and improved the general welfare of judges. It now seeks to increase the number of Justices of the Court of Appeal to reduce pressure on the appellate justice system nationwide, reduce delays, strengthen access to justice and reinforce public confidence in the judiciary.
We urge the National Assembly to give immediate and thorough attention to the proposed bill.
