The Chief Judge of the Federal High Court, Justice John Tsoho has decried the increasing cases of unwarranted attack on judicial officers for performing the lawful duties.
Justice Tsoho, who noted that the trend was disturbing, blamed the development of lawyers and their clients, and asked the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) to work on ways to rein in erring members, failing which judges should deploy their powers under the law.
He accused lawyers, some of whom are Senior Advocates, of yielding themselves as tools to greedy politicians in seeking to manipulate the legal process, but resort to blackmail and name calling when their clandestine overtures are rejected.
Justice Tsoho spoke in Abuja on Monday at a special court session to mark the ceremonial commencement of the Federal High Court’s 2024/2025 legal year, which officially commended in September.
Justice Tsoho said: “I am compelled to seriously deprecate the current pervading attitude of some lawyers, litigants and public commentators, of launching virulent attacks in the media, against Judges and their decisions.
“The Federal High Court regrettably, has been worse for it, arising from its wide territorial and vast subject matter jurisdiction.
This trend seems to have become a ready means of seeking fame, employed mostly by failed lawyers and litigants. They do not realise that the field of law and indeed adjudication, is not a pedestrian affair.
“I wish to use this rare opportunity of voicing out, which comes just once in a year, to comment at length on this canker, as it poses great danger, not only to the Nigerian Judiciary, but the Rule of Law generally,” he said.
Justice Tsoho noted that dangerous and worrisome that people now abandon the legally recognised means of challenging court decisions and instead, resort to mob-mentality.
He added: “It is more so, as those promoting it are not well-informed, but act in concert with some disgruntled lawyers.
“It is very sad that certain lawyers, with a few senior lawyers among them, have willingly offered themselves as errand boys to some politicians to malign judges.
“They secretly seek to influence judges, but hypocritically turn round to condemn judges, when their clandestine overtures to judges are rebuffed.
“In such situations, their supposition is that the judge must have been compromised by the opponent. They merely appear sanctimonious, while levelling unfounded allegations of bribery against judges, in
humongous sums of money.
“None of them has ever proven such allegations, but nevertheless, succeed in inciting the gullible society against the maligned judges.
“It is bad enough that they mostly use faceless media platforms to orchestrate their malicious campaigns.
“They publicly advertise their ignorance by vociferously calling for the immediate ‘sack’ of judicial officers, as if the officers are mere domestic staff.
“They are oblivious that the appointment of judicial officers has statutory flavour and they cannot be removed,
unless there is proven case of serious misconduct.
“The ugly trend must be halted, if the Judiciary is to survive. This is a task for well-meaning members of the legal profession, who owe their lives to the profession.
“For the greedy and shameless renegades however, the collapse of the legal profession itself will not make any difference, as they would readily survive by touting.
“At this juncture, we call on the Nigerian Bar Association to scrutinise its ranks and uproot the misfits, who are causing incalculable damage to the legal profession,” he said.
On what options exist for judicial officers who are unduly maligned, Justice Tsoho said: “We wish to further draw attention that there are extant laws that can be called in aid to check the malicious tendency.
“Both the Criminal Code and the Penal Code provide punishment for malicious or injurious falsehood. For lawyers, the Rules of Professional Conduct can apply.
“On the part of judges, there is crying need to revive exercise of the power of contempt to protect the integrity of their persons and the courts.
“Their reluctance to employ this potent weapon should not be seen as a sign of ignorance or cowardice,” he said.
Justice Tsoho, who noted that it was not unusual for litigants to be dissatisfied with court’s decisions, said the realisation informed why lawful avenues were created in the Constitution to challenge court’s rulings or judgments.
He said: “Firstly, we need to remind ourselves that courts of law are established by the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, the supreme law of the land and are vested with judicial powers by section 6 thereof.
“Similarly, judges, particularly of the superior courts of record, are appointed pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and are obligated to discharge their duties in accordance with the Constitution and enabling statutes.
“Secondly, there exists the hierarchy of courts, which serves to scrutinise the adjudicatory role of the courts, in ascending order. Thus, appeals lie from the High Courts to the Court of Appeal and ultimately to the Supreme Court of Nigeria.
“Consequently, litigants who are dissatisfied with decisions of lower courts are expected and indeed required to express their grievance through the appeal process.
“The right of appeal is constitutionally guaranteed, with regard to both civil and criminal litigation. The essence of this narration is to demonstrate that the legitimate manner of challenging a court decision is through the appeal process.
“If however, a litigant genuinely and strongly feels that a judge has misconducted himself in handling the case, such litigant may then quietly make a written complaint to the National Judicial Council (NJC) for redress.
“There is hence no room in law, for holding press conferences to criticise judicial decisions. The implication therefore, is that those who attack decisions of judges in the press are neither lawyers nor law-abiding, but violators of law.
“It is significant to stress the point that the existence of the appeal structure itself admits of the diverse nature of opinions and thoughts in society, which could occur in the decision-making process.
“Therefore, it is not a crime that there could be concurring or divergent views of superior courts on a decision made by a judge.
“That our decisions are not final, is a blessing. With the industry and brilliance of our judges, appeals are welcome to test the veracity and tenacity that distinguishes our judges.
“However, it is very concerning that the common situation these days is that some parties after appealing the decision of a judge, proceed to petition the NJC on the same issue.
“The question then is: Which of the steps taken does that party accord priority to? This attitude reflects nothing else but malice.
“Judges will not be cowed by such antics. Worse still, some discuss pending cases in the media, notwithstanding that such cases are sub-judice.
“There can also be a cultural reflection on the growing attacks against courts and judges, when it is realised that a good number of judges are aged above 60 years and are hence senior citizens in their own right.
“Yet, it is mostly youths in the age bracket between 25 and 30 years that come to the public arena to heap insults on these elders, some of whom are community leaders or from royal families.
“This is abominable act in refined cultural settings, as traditional society approves only of dignified reproach of elders, even where they err.
“Thus, it is easily discernible that youths, who indulge in such conduct, display lack of decent cultural background. It is therefore, by their fruits that they are known,” he said.
Justice Tsoho, who expressed delight about the performance of the Federal High Court in the previous year, assured of improvement this year and urged judges and support staff to rededicate themselves to duty.
He said: “In this new legal year, I call upon all Judges and staff of the Federal High Court to rededicate themselves to the pursuit of justice.
“Let us work together to uphold the integrity and independence of the Judiciary, and to ensure that the Federal High Court remains a beacon of hope for all who seek justice before it.
“I also urge all stakeholders in the Justice sector, including the Bar, law enforcement agencies, and other agencies of government, to collaborate with us in our efforts to strengthen the wheels of justice in Nigeria.
“I am confident that with our collective commitment and dedication, the Federal High Court will continue to play a pivotal role in upholding the rule of law and promoting a just and equitable society for all Nigerians.”
Giving statistics of the court’s performance during the last legal year, Justice Tsoho said the 2023/2024 legal year officially closed in July, 2024.
He added: “At the beginning of that Legal Year, a total of 152, 469 cases were pending and carried over from the previous legal year.
“Within the legal year under review (2023/2024), a total of 13, 648 cases were filed and 10, 148 were disposed of, leaving 155, 969 cases pending, which have been carried over to the current legal year.
“These figures represent Civil – 43,030; Criminal – 41,335; fundamental rights enforcement – 28,760 and AMCON cases, as well as petitions and motions together – 42,844.”
Justice Tsoho called for increased budgetary allocations to the Judiciary and advocated for enhanced utilisation of other mechanisms of dispute resolution as against the current concentration on the litigation process.
He took time to address what he described as misconceptions around the money often attached to the grant of bail.
He said: “I consider it pertinent to briefly shed light on the commonly misconstrued phrase of ‘bail bond.’
“Most people interpret the “bond” entered into as a bail condition, to mean actual payment of money. When bail is ‘granted in the sum of N1million’ for instance, it does not mean that the surety is there and then expected to deposit that sum of money with the court.
“Rather, the surety is to enter into a bond, which is a promise, an undertaking or agreement, to the effect that the person undergoing trial would consistently attend court and would not escape, until the trial is concluded.
“If however, the person escapes without satisfactory explanation, the surety will be held to pay the promised money (the value of the bond) to the court.
“This is a voluntary decision by the surety, hence unless he is trusting of the person under trial, he is not obliged to execute the bail bond.
“It is therefore, a matter of ignorance or mischief, to ascribe a contrary interpretation to the matter of bail bond.
“This explanation is meant to enlighten the misinformed, so that they will refrain from unduly vilifying judges regarding the issue of bail bond,” Justice Tsoho said.
