In his inaugural speech last Friday, President Muhammadu Buhari spoke of judicial reform to allow for the swift dispensation of corruption-related cases. In this report, Eric Ikhilae identifies key areas that could be tinkered with to allow for the planned reform.
President Muhammadu Buhari, in his inaugural speech last Friday, spoke of reforms in some critical institutions, including the Judiciary.
Many Nigerians support him. They believe that the Judiciary should be overhauled to ensure, among others, swift dispensation of justice, a major prerequisite for the success of the administration’s pledge to tackle corruption.
Although there have been attempts to reform the Judiciary, the third arm of government is still battling with challenges ranging from autonomy, institutional defects, a faulty appointment process to poor funding. There is also the problem of archaic laws and procedural rules, requiring prompt attention.
Observers contend that any judicial reform must first begin with cleansing of the court system to eliminate bad eggs. They argue that corruption must be tackled for any reform initiative to be meaningful.
They note that judicial officers pay little regard to their code of conduct and ethics, part of which informed the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Mahmud Mohammed’s scathing remarks about judges, who write books and launch them while in service.
The CJN said it was “regrettable to note that some petitions received at the National Judicial Council (NJC) were written in respect of books launched by or on behalf of Heads of Court and being attended by litigants in their courts, who have also acted as chief launchers or indeed guests of honour on the occasion.
“Judges must understand that by launching such books while in service, they potentially submit themselves to the publishers and the so called launchers, while opening themselves up to allegations of corruption.
“It is now clear, judging from the public’s reaction to these book launches and the resultant negative media coverage of same, that our ability to be impartial and indeed honest in our judgments, is now regarded with scepticism.”
Observers said it is not enough for the CJN to condemn such conduct among judges, and that he should penalise those found wanting.
They argued that President Buhari’s pledge to ensure independence for the Judiciary within the context of the principle of separation of power must include financial independence as provided in the Constitution. This, they said, would enable the Judiciary provide for its needs, including prompt payment of salaries and other entitlements, procurement of necessary tools, the employment of qualified support staff and continuous training for judges and other court’s personnel.
The continued retention of old laws in the nation’s statute books has to a greater extent impeded the effective operation of the court because they no longer meet today’s requirements. Where, for instance, the penalties for some offences are no longer adequate, the judge is mostly helpless. This problem can only be solved with a review of the laws to bring them to term with current realities.
In line with the CJN’s announcement on May 14, this year of a new procedure for judges’appointment, observers have also called for a continues review of the procedure to ensure that the Bench is populated with men and women of great learning and integrity, who are committed to ensuring justice even though the heavens may fall.
According to the CJN the new procedure, as contained in the 2014 Revised National Judicial Council (NJC) Guidelines and Procedural ýRules for the Appointment of Judicial Officers of All Superior Courts of Record in Nigeria, “will ensure that only fit and proper persons and the most intellectually astute, morally sound, meritorious and deserving candidates were appointed as judges”.
Observers have also suggested that institutional reform in the Judiciary should extend to the review of the membership of the NJC, particularly as it relates its headship by the CJN and its membership comprising mostly of serving judge. They argued that the CJN, as a serving judge, whose conduct is subject to the supervision of the NJC, should not be made to head the NJC, which has the responsibility to scrutinise the conduct of the CJN.
They suggested that where the head and membership of the NJC were made up of retired judicial officers and complemented by notable lawyers of integrity, it would ensure an unbiased supervision of judicial activities by the NJC,
This, they argued, would prevent a recurrence of the 2011 crisis between the then CJN, Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu (retired) and then President of the Court of Appeal (PCA), Justice Isa Ayo Salami (rtd), which was taken before the NJC headed by CJN.
Lawyers, in also reacting to the President’s observation about the need for judicial reform, have equally identified areas requiring urgent attention in the Judiciary. They include President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Augustine Alegeh (SAN) and two of his predecessors, Wole Olanipekun (SAN) and Oluwarotimi Akeredolu (SAN).
Others include Sebastine Hon (SAN), Mahmud Magaji (SAN) and Ade Adedeji.
Alegeh, ina statement on May 29, this year said the NBA expects the new administration to set out as part of its agenda, the amendment and reformation of Nigerian laws to make them meet present day challenges.
“Government policies must be backed by law and to actualise the desired change agenda, there must be reformation of our Laws to give legal backing to the change agenda. The NBA offers its unflinching support to the administration in the exercise of amending, reforming and update of Nigerian laws,” he said.
Olanipekun said the needed judicial review must begin with ensuring the independence of the judiciary, then move on to sanitising the judicial sphere. He said his call for the sanitisation of the sector does not amount to a call for the government to pocket the judiciary.
The former NBA President, at a reception in Lagos in honour of Vice President Yemi Osinbajo (SAN), said the Judiciary must be respected and recognised as an independent arm of government, just like the Executive and Legislature, because it is not and never inferior to either of the two.
“Part of sanitising the judiciary entails proper funding and making it self-financing. Thank God for majority of our Judges who shun corruption like a plague, and who would deliver judgments based on facts and law and not on extenuating over-bearings or influences.
“However, my take has always been that a single bad egg can and will always give our judiciary a bad name, and stigmatise the vast majority of excellent judges. Thus, the few bad eggs, when and where identified, should be shown the way out, while more thorough and painstaking efforts should be put in place at appointing new judges.
The judiciary itself, through some of our serving judges should stop the fanfare of randomly issuing ex-parte orders of injunction against theNational Judicial Council (NJC) in the performance of its constitutionally assigned duty of putting machineries in motion at disciplining erring judges, as this practice has virtually crippled the council.
The Judiciary has been constitutionally ‘unitarised’. This is unfair and unjust. An agenda for decentralising the judiciary should be quickly put in place. State or Regional Courts of Appeal and Supreme Courts should be allowed to flourish and decide cases to finality within their different spheres, zones and regions.
‘’The Federal Government has no business establishing a federal judiciary to handle state matters, whether criminal or civil,” Olanipekun said.
Akeredolu, who spoke in an interview shortly after the President’s inauguration in Abuja, said the President’s pledge to ensure the independence of the Judiciary was welcome, saying the country’s Judiciary needs free hand to operate. He urged the President to put in place the necessary mechanism for the reformation of the Judiciary.
Hon advocated the need for any reform in the Judiciary to commence with statutory and constitutional amendments that will put the Judiciary on a good pedestal. This, he said, is because the nation has archaic laws that impede the process of litigation and due process of law.
He also suggested a review of the procedure for the appointment of judges. “They will do well, especially for the appellate court, to be appointing lawyers from private practice and intermingling them with judges from the lower courts. This will allow for a find blend of people from outside and people from within, because we have had such experience before, and it produced fine result.
“There should be true independence for the Judiciary, particularly on the issue of finding. If there is no financial independence, then, we are only being academic on this issue of reform. They should discipline erring judges with dispatch. This is because it is no more a hidden fact that there is corruption in the judiciary and among judicial officers. So, they should discipline judges, who are found wanting with dispatch,” Hon said.
Magaji, who is concerned about the need to ensure prompt conclusion of corruption-related cases, argued: “If we are to make headway in the fight against corruption, some courts should be dedicated to treating corruption related cases. And in doing that, the head of that court can devise a means, like the practice direction, to aid the quick dispensation of justice. That, I think should be the best approach.”
Adedeji argued thatdespite the President’s urge for reform in the judiciary, such could only be effected internally, with the Executive only making recommendations and playing some roles in law reforms, but not to be involved in the reform of the Judiciary as an arm of government.
He said the President could only achieve his aim if he is able to win the support of those within Judiciary, who possess the power to effect the needed changes.
“If Mr. President is talking about encouraging independence of the Judiciary and Separation of Powers, it will amount to conflict in terms, if at the same time he is talking of reform in the Judiciary. If the Judiciary is to be reformed, it can only be reformed by those people within the Judiciary.
“I believe the President was just being a politician. I do not believe that, as the President of this nation, he can reform the Judiciary and yet, to a great extent, encourage Separation of Power and the independence of the Judiciary. But he is not properly positioned to actually reform the Judiciary.
“Why I say the President’s suggestion of reform in the Judiciary is a contradiction is term, is that it is not his primary responsibility to reform the Judiciary. He cannot interfere in the internal affairs of the Judiciary for the purpose of reforming it,” Adedeji said.
