The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Judicial

  • Abuse of judicial process

    Abuse of judicial process

    • Its manifestation in the PDP crisis must be probed

    The conflicting court orders leading to the last Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) convention in Ibadan, Oyo State, was an embarrassment to the judiciary, and we urge the National Judicial Council (NJC) to investigate if there was any abuse.

     In a suit filed by some state party officials, the Federal High Court presided over by Justice James Omotosho, among other pronouncements, issued an order that the planned National Convention be put on hold, until the procedure laid down by the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and the PDP Constitution for election of delegates is followed.

    As a counter-measure, some party members approached a state High Court in Ibadan, presided over by Justice A. L. Akintola, to obtain an interim mandatory injunction, directing the PDP leadership to hold the convention as planned. The judge also directed the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to attend the convention and observe the election.

    Feeling disenfranchised, former governor of Jigawa State Sule Lamido, approached a Federal High Court, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, to obtain an order stopping INEC from recognising the convention, until Lamido is allowed to participate.

    Again, the PDP political redoubt in Ibadan returned to Justice A. L. Akintola, to reaffirm the pendency of their interim order compelling the relevant officials to hold the convention as planned. The judge granted the order and the convention which the other factions had described as a jamboree held, without INEC monitoring it.

    Read Also: Insecurity: Nigeria welcomes help without intimidation – Senator Oluremi Tinubu

    From the foregoing, it was clear that the contending parties treated the courts as instruments to achieve their various contending interests; and sadly, the courts appeared to be willing tools, which is why we demand an investigation by the NJC.

    As if the cynical abuse of the judicial process was not enough embarrassment for the country, the party stalwarts and their supporters later engaged in a battle over who should occupy the PDP secretariat, in Abuja. The chairman purportedly elected at the contested convention in Ibadan, Dr Kabiru Turaki (SAN), with the governor of Bauchi State, Bala Mohammed, and that of Oyo State, Seyi Makinde, went to the secretariat only to meet the faction loyal to the secretary of the party, Sam Anyanwu, holding what they claimed was the National Executive Council (NEC) meeting with the Board of Trustees of PDP.

    The situation led to a free-for-all. The controversially elected chairman of the party at the Ibadan convention, while speaking to the press, claimed that apart from the persecution of Christians in Nigeria, parties are also victims. He called on the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, to intervene. We wonder whether the learned silk was not aware of the subsisting court orders obtained by his party members to stop the convention.

    The videos of the free-for-all showed the governors of Oyo and Bauchi with the controversial party officials all starry-eyed, while acting in defiance of subsisting court orders. By their own accounts, the challenges bedevilling the party are from outside, yet all the litigants in the court cases were members of the party.

    Those purportedly suspended at the convention in turn also professedly suspended those who had suspended them. To stem further mayhem, the police have sealed the WADATA plaza, the PDP secretariat.

    Sadly, the PDP Board of Trustees, which should have remained above the crisis, took sides; and its leadership was amongst those suspended by the factional NEC, led by Mohammed Abdulrahman. We wonder who would save the PDP, with most of its notable leaders in one of the contending factions.

     Perhaps untangling the legal conundrum should be the first step, so that a legitimate leadership can make genuine efforts to rehabilitate the party.

  • NILDS, NJI seek partnership on capacity building for lawmakers, judicial officers

    NILDS, NJI seek partnership on capacity building for lawmakers, judicial officers

    The National Institute for Legislative and Democratic Studies (NILDS) and the National Judicial Institute (NJI) have agreed to collaborate in enhancing their roles as training arms of the Legislature and Judiciary.

    At a meeting in Abuja on Friday, both bodies inaugurated a nine-member joint committee to explore areas of cooperation in capacity building, research, and knowledge-sharing.

    NILDS Director-General, Prof. Abubakar Sulaiman, who received NJI Administrator, Hon. Justice Babatunde Adejumo, said the synergy would strengthen the training of lawmakers and judicial officers.

    He added that NILDS could support advocacy roles for NJI, while benefiting from NJI’s legal expertise in training legislators.

    Sulaiman said, “The mandate of our institute is that it is the research wing of the legislature and democratic actors in Nigeria and West Africa. The only legally-backed body to train our lawmakers and nurture their skills.

    “We also train political parties, Non-Governmental Organisations, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), and the media.

    “We have been providing all manner of assistance, especially when it comes to legislation. This is the leading institute in West Africa today in that regard, and we remain the ladder on which the parliament stands.”

    Read Also: Ekiti guber election: Oyebanji, Omolayo submit APC nomination forms

    Sulaiman added that a lot could be achieved through the synergy in guiding some of the “conflicting pronouncements” by our courts through equipping judicial officers with the requisite skills to avoid missteps.

    He further stated that a better-equipped NJI could become the hub for the training of judicial officers from across Africa, thereby saving the nation the scarce resources spent on foreign training in places like Harvard and Oxford.

    “So, in this area, the NJI can speak out, they can guide, they can advise.

    We need to share knowledge even in the training we give to our clients.

    “We also run Master’s and Ph.D programmes in NILDS, and we have resource persons and lecturers from many other bodies.

    “We can’t be wasting resources going to Harvard all the time. NJI can fit in here and make Nigeria the place other African judges can come to be trained”, the DG of NILDS said.

    Earlier, Hon. Justice Adejumo shared the same views as Sulaiman, agreeing that both institutions “have a lot to learn from each other”, despite executing different mandates.

    According to the former President of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN), the ever-evolving nature of law means that judicial officers also must always be a step ahead by honing their skills.

    “We need sister agencies like NILDS to achieve our training objectives. So, I am here to understudy, learn from you, and synergise. You may need our support too, and so on.

    “NILDs is one of those few institutes we need to collaborate with to meet our own objectives”, Adejumo said.

  • Wanted: legislative, judicial overhaul of insolvency process

    Wanted: legislative, judicial overhaul of insolvency process

    In light of Nigeria’s economic difficulties, stakeholders have raised urgent concerns about the country’s insolvency and business recovery processes, advocating for more effective regulatory structures and judicial approaches. Anne Agbi reports.

    In the face of Nigeria’s ongoing economic challenges, concerns about the country’s insolvency and business recovery processes have intensified.

    This was a central theme at the 2024 Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria (BRIPAN) annual international conference, which convened key figures from the legal, financial, and business sectors to deliberate on strategies for strengthening Nigeria’s insolvency framework.

    The conference, with the theme: “Restructuring and Insolvency in times of Economic Challenges” was held at the MUSON Centre, Onikan, Lagos.

    With a focus on legislative reforms, judicial expertise, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the event underscored the urgent need for more efficient regulatory structures to support business recovery and foster economic stability.

    Justice Simon Amobeda of the Federal High Court underscored the necessity of legislative reforms to modernise Nigeria’s insolvency framework, emphasising the role of the judiciary in driving these processes.

    In his presentation, Strategies for Fostering Judicial Expertise in Insolvency and Restructuring, Justice Amobeda argued that as the complexity of financial systems and corporate entities increases, the judiciary must be equipped with modern tools to manage restructuring cases more efficiently.

    “Legislative reforms that modernise insolvency frameworks can empower the judiciary to manage restructuring processes more effectively.”

    He lamented several challenges impeding the insolvency process in Nigeria, including limited judicial expertise, procedural delays, the absence of specialised insolvency courts, and difficulties in handling cross-border insolvency cases.

    Cross-border insolvency: a growing necessity

    Also, emphasis was on  the need for Nigeria to strengthen its approach to cross-border insolvency.

    Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Babatunde Ogala, noted that while Nigeria has yet to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency, this was becoming increasingly crucial as more Nigerian businesses expanded beyond national borders.

    Read Also: Nigeria at 64: Mbah calls for unity, inclusive national economic development

    He said: “Our economy is evolving, and our businesses are becoming regional. But I dare say, we have not reached that stage of playing on the global arena.”

    He added that while some Nigerian businesses operate across borders, concerns over political dominance and legal complexities have slowed the implementation of cross-border insolvency laws in Nigeria and other developing countries.

    Ogala also pointed out the critical role of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 in regulating insolvency in Nigeria. “Today, in Nigeria, CAMA and to some extent, the Bankruptcy Act, are the key statutes regulating insolvency practice.

    “CAMA introduced important reforms like Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA) and Company Administration (CA) to improve business recovery, yet the adoption of these processes has been slow.”

    He also highlighted that CAMA recognises BRIPAN as a regulatory body for insolvency practitioners while empowering the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC) to license them.

    In addressing cross-border insolvency, Ogala noted, “There’s a lot of talk about the UNCITRAL Model Law, which is meant to facilitate insolvency practice beyond borders, without barriers, but it hasn’t been domesticated in Nigeria.” He added that only a limited number of Nigerian businesses engage in cross-border activities, and even those are largely confined to regional rather than global operations.

    “How many Nigerian businesses can you really say are doing cross-border businesses? Most are still restricted to regional, not international, markets,” Ogala remarked.

    He further explained the challenges of opening up to international insolvency frameworks, saying, “By the time you open up to the West, they will swarm us. We know it, and that’s part of the reason why we’re cautious.”

    Ogala concluded by acknowledging the ongoing evolution of Nigeria’s business environment but noted that there is still much work to be done before Nigerian companies can truly compete on a global scale.

    Senior Partner at Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, Dr. Anthony Idigbe (SAN), who shared this sentiment, advocated for BRIPAN to achieve chartered status and urged practitioners to deepen their knowledge and collaboration in handling cross-border cases.

    He raised concerns about Nigeria’s preparedness to handle cross-border insolvency practices amidst the nation’s growing business environment,  he emphasised the urgency for Nigeria to develop a framework that supports cross-border transactions, especially as Nigerian businesses continue to expand globally.

    “The issue of cross-border insolvency is pressing because Nigerian businesses are booming, and as they expand globally, we must be prepared to handle the complexities that come with cross-border transactions and proceedings,” Idigbe said.

    He pointed out that despite the progress made with the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020, there remains a significant gap due to Nigeria’s failure to adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

    “While CAMA 2020 represents a major leap in developing Nigeria’s insolvency regime, the absence of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency is a challenge. Having this law in place, even though it’s not reciprocal, would enhance Nigeria’s business climate and create opportunities for practitioners to obtain relief across borders,” Idigbe explained.

    He stressed that the inclusion of this model law would facilitate cross-border proceedings and provide better protection for businesses with international dealings.

    Idigbe also discussed the recognition of BRIPAN (Business Recovery and Insolvency Practitioners Association of Nigeria) under CAMA 2020 but highlighted that the organisation is yet to achieve chartered status.

    “Although BRIPAN is recognised under CAMA 2020, it still needs to work towards achieving chartered status. Nigerian companies are going global, and when they face insolvency crises, the main proceedings are likely to be based in Nigeria,” he added, emphasising the importance of having Nigerian practitioners who can operate across borders in insolvency matters.

    With the growth of Nigeria’s financial sector, Idigbe noted that it is vital for Nigeria to develop the expertise required to manage insolvency cases for businesses with international operations.

    “The financial sector is strengthening, and it is likely to fund the global expansion of Nigerian companies. Therefore, insolvency proceedings will increasingly be held in Nigeria, and we must ensure that our practitioners are equipped to handle these cases,” he said.

    Idigbe praised BRIPAN’s efforts in professionalising the insolvency practice in Nigeria through training programmes, fellowship opportunities, and its annual international conferences.

    He urged the organisation to continue in this direction and seek legislation to become chartered. “BRIPAN’s ongoing work in professional development is commendable, and I encourage them to continue their efforts while pursuing legislation that will grant them chartered status,” he concluded.

    Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

    Speaking on the topic, “Promoting Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to resolve issues outside of court”, Managing Solicitor, Trizon Law Chambers, Foluke Akinmoladun said in today’s complex legal and financial landscape, lawyers are essential facilitators of debt dispute resolution through mediation and arbitration.

    “They provide invaluable expertise, guide their clients through ADR processes, and ensure that settlements and awards are legally sound and enforceable. By leveraging these alternatives to litigation, lawyers help preserve relationships, reduce costs, and achieve timely and fair resolutions,” she said.

    Corporate Affairs Commission’s Perspective

    Hussaini Magaji, Registrar General of the Corporate Affairs Commission (CAC), highlighted the critical role of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) 2020 in transforming insolvency practice in Nigeria.

    Represented by his Special Assistant, Terver Ayua-Jor, Magaji outlined the provisions of CAMA 2020, which introduced three new major insolvency processes: Company Voluntary Arrangements (CVA), Company Administration (CA), and Netting.

    According to him, the utilitarian value of the concept of business recovery was more compelling now than in other times.

    He stated that changes in approach and in legal framework came with the promulgation of the Companies and Allied Matters Act (CAMA) No.3 of 2020 Sections 434 –549 and 718 – 727.

    Magaji said the Act introduced three new major insolvency processes which are; Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA), Company Administration (CA) and Netting.

    He added that the Act in section 705 (1) (d) recognised BRIPAN as one of the professional associations entitled to be given automatic authorisation to practice as insolvency practitioners by the commission.

    Magaji said that in addition to the development of a framework for accreditation of insolvency practitioners, the commission issued insolvency regulations 2022 to drive the new framework.

    The CAC registrar, however, noted that the current legal and administrative reforms had not translated into quantum leap in business recovery processes.

    He said that in spite of the available legal reforms, less than 10 CVA & CA applications had been filed in the last three years of the issuance of insolvency regulation, while stating that there are still more filings of the traditional processes of liquidations and receiverships.

    Despite these legal reforms, Magaji noted that uptake of these processes had been slow, with less than 10 CVA and CA applications filed in the last three years.

    “The current legal and administrative reforms have not yet translated into a significant leap in business recovery processes,” Magaji lamented, noting that traditional processes like liquidation and receivership remained dominant.

    Focus on tax and compliance

    Ugochi Ndebbio, Associate Director at PwC Nigeria, touched on the increasing global focus on tax compliance and transparency, urging insolvency practitioners to remain vigilant about tax issues when handling business recovery cases.

    She warned that non-compliance could result in significant liabilities, which could worsen the financial plight of businesses in distress.

    She emphasised the increasing focus on tax compliance and transparency worldwide, which has significantly impacted the insolvency landscape.

    “There is an increased focus across the world, not just in Nigeria, around tax compliance,” she explained. “Most jurisdictions are looking at more stringent reporting and transparency, even across different countries. Now we have something called the automatic exchange of information, which means you can no longer hide your financial records in any country that subscribes to this system.”

    She went on to highlight the importance of insolvency practitioners understanding these global trends to prevent further financial complications for the businesses they manage. “If the Nigerian tax authority is looking for information about your assets or financial records, and you have a business in the UK, for example, they can easily request this information from UK authorities.

    “This increased transparency means insolvency practitioners must take tax compliance seriously to avoid liabilities that could worsen a company’s financial situation,” Ndebbio stressed.

    Focusing on the Nigerian context, Ndebbio noted that tax is often a priority payment. She warned that penalties and interest on tax liabilities could exceed the principal amount, further straining companies in receivership or liquidation.

    “A company that’s already in distress doesn’t want to be using the little money they have to settle tax debts,” she remarked.

    Ndebbio also discussed the role of digitization in modern tax practices, urging Nigerian companies to catch up with global trends.

    “Most jurisdictions have digitised their tax filings, and some even conduct e-audits. Unfortunately, Nigeria hasn’t fully embraced electronic audits yet,” Ndebbio said.

    She emphasised that adopting digitised tax practices can streamline tax administration, reduce paperwork, and cut down on the time spent managing tax matters.

    “It’s crucial for Nigerian companies to modernise their tax processes to avoid unnecessary delays and complications.”

    Ndebbio further highlighted the importance of tax reliefs, especially for struggling companies. “There are tax reliefs available, and insolvency practitioners need to be aware of them. For instance, if a company incurs losses, those losses can be carried forward and used to offset future profits, reducing tax liabilities,” she explained.

    She encouraged insolvency practitioners to leverage such opportunities to minimise payouts and improve the chances of business recovery.

    Reflecting on the global tax landscape, Ndebbio noted that several countries have provided bailouts and subsidies to businesses affected by economic downturns, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    She pointed out examples in Nigeria, such as government bailouts for Arik Air and Nigerian Aviation Handling Company (NAHCO). “Insolvency practitioners need to explore these reliefs, grants, and subsidies, especially for SMEs, to help businesses stay afloat during difficult times,” she added.

    Ndebbio reiterated the need for insolvency practitioners to stay updated on tax regulations and reliefs. “As insolvency practitioners, the goal is to reduce cash outflows as much as possible, while ensuring compliance with tax obligations. Staying informed about global tax trends, reliefs, and digitisation is key to achieving this,” she concluded.

    BRIPAN’s call for action

    BRIPAN’s president, Chimezie Ihekweazu (SAN), expressed concerns over the continuing struggles of businesses despite the government’s efforts to improve the economic welfare of Nigerians. He emphasised the importance of collaboration among regulators, the judiciary, and business leaders to explore opportunities for improving the business recovery landscape.

    “As leaders and key stakeholders in the insolvency and restructuring landscape, we are tasked with the responsibility of ensuring that our legal and regulatory structures are equipped to address these challenges effectively while promoting economic growth, financial stability, and long-term recovery,” Ihekweazu said.

    Ihekweazu also highlighted BRIPAN’s ongoing efforts to professionalize insolvency practice in Nigeria, with initiatives such as training programs, fellowship opportunities, and the promotion of legislative reforms to ensure that Nigeria’s legal framework keeps pace with global best practices.

    NBA President on collaboration, investor confidence

    Mazi Afam Osigwe (SAN), President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), reinforced the necessity of collaboration between legal and financial experts to ensure that businesses facing financial difficulties have a fair chance at survival.

    “Effective restructuring and insolvency processes are essential to preserving business value, protecting jobs, and fostering investor confidence,” Osigwe said.

    Osigwe stressed that in these times of uncertainty, the expertise of restructuring and insolvency professionals had become most crucial whilst stating that effective restructuring and insolvency processes were essential to preserving business value, protecting jobs, and fostering investor confidence.

     He stated that as global and national economies experienced pressures from multiple fronts, legal and financial experts needed to collaborate to find sustainable solutions.

    Osigwe added that the NBA, the largest professional body of lawyers in Nigeria, recognised the important role BRIPAN played in shaping insolvency practice in our country.

    He pledged the NBA’s continued collaboration with BRIPAN to improve the regulatory framework governing insolvency, adding that the NBA remains committed to promoting fairness and transparency for creditors, employees, and other stakeholders.

    “We remain committed to working alongside BRIPAN to improve the legal and regulatory frameworks governing restructuring and insolvency.

    “Our shared goal is to ensure that businesses facing financial difficulties have the best chance of survival while maintaining fairness and transparency for creditors, employees, and other stakeholders,” he said.

    NBA Lagos branch chairman, Olabisi Makanjuola in his goodwill message, said it is crucial as professionals and stakeholders, to continue to collaborate, innovate, and develop frameworks that promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the management of distressed assets and entities.

    He said: “As practitioners in the legal and business recovery fields, we are acutely aware that the way we approach insolvency and restructuring can make the difference between the survival and demise of businesses.

    “In the face of these challenges, restructuring is not just a tool for survival but also a means of rejuvenating companies and economies, providing the opportunity to emerge stronger and more resilient.”

  • ‘How to enhance judicial independence, judge craft’

    ‘How to enhance judicial independence, judge craft’

    How to strengthen the independence of the judiciary and enhance judge craft were the thrusts of a one-day workshop for justices and judges in Abuja.

    Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Olukayode Ariwoola stressed the judiciary’s commitment to strengthening its independence and enhancing the capacity of members of the bench.

    The workshop with the theme: Judicial independence and judge craft, was organised by the National Judicial Institute (NJI) in collaboration with the Forum Against Counterfeiting (FAC).

    The CJN said despite significant progress made in attaining judicial independence, more still needs to be done.

    He said: “Ongoing and sustained efforts are still required to address the challenges faced.

    “We will not relent in seeking better options and actions that will ensure that the Nigerian judiciary remains a strong, impartial and independent arbiter of justice and the rule of law.”

    The CJN added that judges must also boost their capabilities as a way of restoring confidence in the judiciary.

    He said: “The act and science of judging require a deep and contextual understanding of the law, commitment to do justice and the innate ability to apply legal principles to complex and often vexatious issues without fear of favour.

    “I must also reiterate that the substantive requirements of judicial independence, judge craft and the art of judging are built around public expectations for judges to decide matters before them fairly impartially and on the basis of facts.

    “Such decisions must go in accordance with the law, without restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, directly or indirectly, from any quarter of for any reason.”

    Global Chairman of FAC, Dr Anthony Idigbe (SAN), spoke on the use of technology in case management to achieve efficiency.

    He referred to Grudin’s Law, which suggests that when those who benefit from technology are not those who do the work, the technology is likely to fail or be subverted.

    According to him, digital transformation is not about technology but people and processes.

    He gave tips as to how the people issues in digital transformation in the judiciary can be resolved.

    Idigbe, Senior Partner at Punuka Attorneys and Solicitors, said FAC is focused on promoting the rule of law generally but with a particular focus on anticounterfeiting.

    NJI Administrator, Justice Salisu Abdullahi, described the pursuit of Justice as the cornerstone of a thriving democracy.

    He said: “It is essential that our judicial system operates with utmost efficiency and effectiveness to uphold the principles upon which our nation was founded.

    “In this light, concerted efforts must be made towards the timely resolution of cases, the streamlining of legal procedure and the elimination of unnecessary delays.

    Read Also: Minimum wage: Fed govt to introduce amendment to 2024 Budget – FEC

    “It is imperative that we ensure that justice is not only done but is done in a manner that respects the rights and needs of all parties involved as swift justice instils confidence in our legal system.

    “The theme of this workshop could not have come at a better time than now as it is designed to afford the justices and judges the opportunity to appraise the judicial system and consequently suggest conventions for improvement.

    “As society evolves, we must continue to be dynamic and pragmatic in order to adequately address the conflicts that will inevitably arise, bearing in mind that the only constant thing in life is change.

    “In order achieve efficiency and effectiveness, we must invest in technology, case management, continuing judicial education and access to justice, among others.”

    Retired Justice of the Supreme Court, Amina Augie, noted that the power of the Judiciary lies in the confidence the people have in its activities and decisions, which every judge must protect.

    “We need to be able to show that justice is not only done, it is seen to be done, and that in the judgment you write, in whatever you are doing, they are able to see and trust that you are doing the right thing, and that you are deciding fairly,” she said.

    She added that it is the process of creating the type of judgments that sustain public confidence in the system that constitutes the art and craft of judging.

    Drawing from her experience, Justice Augie noted judgment writing is tedious and requires commitment to be able to weave together all the issues involved in a case and deliver a lucid verdict.

    She cautioned against judges allowing others to write judgments for them, noting that a judge’s judgment reflects who he is.

    A judge of the National Industrial Court, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, urged the judiciary to reassess its communication strategies to change some public perceptions that are misconceived.

    He said: “Nigerian judiciary gained notoriety for adjournments and delays not because every court or every judge is involved, but because that is the posturing that has been communicated and perceived by the people.

    “If one court is inefficient, it rubs off on the entire judiciary, as it has also been rhetorically echoed: ‘Go to Court!’ 

    “The corporate culture of the Nigerian judiciary should be passionately positive in its vision and mission.

    “Deliberate and constant monitoring and benchmarking of judicial performance in efficiency and integrity would be a recipe for rebranding the perceived communication of inefficiency and corrupt tendencies, with which the judicial system in Nigeria has been branded and labelled. 

    “Concerted efforts should, therefore, be geared towards re-branding the perceived negative public branding of the judiciary as communicated through conducts which invariably condensed as what the judiciary represents, albeit erroneously.”

    Former Lagos Solicitor-General and one-time commissioner, Fola Arthur-Worrey, said the relationship between judicial independence and judge craft is symbiotic.

    “It would be difficult to assess a judge’s position in one area without considering his position in the other.

    “Judicial independence allows judges the freedom to exercise their craft without external pressures, ensuring that their decisions are based solely on the law and the merits of the case

    “Conversely, strong judicial craft contributes to the legitimacy of judicial independence by demonstrating the judiciary’s competence and integrity in interpreting and applying the law

    “In essence, while judicial independence protects judges from external influence, judicial craft empowers them to fulfil their role as impartial arbiters of justice,” Arthur-Worrey said.

    FAC National Coordinator for Nigeria, Mrs Ebelechukwu Enedah, who is also a partner at Punuka Attorneys & Solicitors, said the theme was borne from the fact that the judiciary has been bedevilled with attacks on its independence at different levels in developed and underdeveloped countries.

    “In upholding the rule of law, the courts have found that they must find a way to uphold their independence from the ongoing siege, especially in recent times, so as not to undermine the independence of the judiciary. These attacks have come from the executive, the legislature, and the private sector.

    “Even though there are constitutional, statutory, and administrative rules in place to promote judicial independence, it has become apparent in the face of recent siege that more needs to be done to ensure that judicial officers hold to the highest standard of professional and personal conduct that can withstand these attacks and uphold the rule of law,” she said.

    According to her, the subject of judge craft speaks to the art of judging.

    Mrs. Enedah said though judges are not artists who may have a lot of creative liberty, their work is similar.

    She explains: “A judgment becomes a canvas on which a judge should use his knowledge of the law and evidence presented before him to paint a masterpiece, which is his decision backed by sound reasoning.

    “The artistic tapestry enshrined in the process of adjudication comes to the fore in assisting a judicial officer in navigating these minefields of undue influence exerted by the executive, pressure from the legislature, previous political connections, interference by senior colleagues, the impact of the corporate sector, and effect of family or social relationships in upholding the tenets of justice.

    “Independence, propriety, impartiality, integrity, equality, competence and diligence are judge crafts that a judicial officer must imbibe to discharge his or her hallowed duty without fear or favour.

    “So, this workshop on ‘Judicial Independence and Judge Craft’ provides an opportunity for the honourable justices to tool/retool their arsenal to continue to do their work excellently well.”

  • Judicial officers and public opinion

    Judicial officers and public opinion

    • By Olukayode Ariwoola

    Political matters always tend to occupy the front burner of our adjudicatory activities as all the subsisting electoral laws have placed some time frame within which they must be heard and decided. Besides, the kind of attention and emotions attached to political matters in this country have collectively made our work more excruciating, painstaking and some times, endangering, as we are  occasionally exposed to threats, especially from some elements within the political fold.

    But like I always say, no amount of threat or intimidation should make a thoroughbred judicial officer deviate from the law and pander to public sentiments and emotions which are often misplaced.

    Most times, we see trials being conducted in the media with a view to intimidating a Judge to do their bidding. Media trial can never hoodwink a Judicial Officer to begin to do what is unconstitutional and at variance with our extant laws.

    The 2023 election has opened a new vista in our adjudication in political matters in the country. So many things have been thrown up in the course of the various adjudications that took place at the different tribunals and courts that we now have to serve on our workshop table for intense rumination and digestion, as it were.

    This workshop is, no doubt, coming at the most auspicious time. It will, undoubtedly, offer us the rare opportunity to review those things that we may have done at our various levels which may not have been done with the best of intention and professionalism.

    Like I always say, it is better late than never. Every given opportunity offers us a free ticket to do something novel and more impactful, especially if there was any previous act of wrongdoing or misapplication of discretion.

    As judicial officers, we should be very mindful of the enormous confidence the public reposes in us and their great expectations as well. To whom much is given, much is expected in return. We must not rest on our oars. The onus lies heavily on us and we must guide our loins to do more to earn lasting trust and integrity. Our conduct and disposition must respond to the yearnings and aspirations of the generality of the citizenry.

    We are not in our respective positions to serve ourselves, but the Nigerian masses; and the best way we can serve them is by doing what will make them feel safe in our hands and also trust us to always deliver the right judgment that will not be tainted by sentiments, emotions, nepotism or other extraneous considerations. We should always be mindful of the fact that we stand in the place of God on earth to give judgment. The weight of this burden is so enormous that we cannot afford to do what is wrong, as we are all aware of what lies ahead of us when we appear before our Creator to give account of our deeds on earth, particularly the various judgments that we may have given.

    Read Also: Yahaya Bello: Appeal Court fails to hear EFCC chair’s case against contempt proceeding

    No doubt, the adjudication on the 2023 election petitions came with varied challenges that have to be critically assessed and reviewed in order to forge a much better way forward. In those areas that we have done well, we can literally eulogise ourselves and strive to improve on them, as self-praise is no viler an offence than self-denial. As for those areas that our inadequacies are manifestly obvious, we have to properly address them and bring on board new methods and approaches that would whet our appetite for success. We must intensify efforts in engaging in those activities that will earn us more accolades than vilifications.

    I have sounded it clearly and loudly, too, at different occasions that any judicial officer who conducts himself in a manner that is considered unbecoming of a judicial officer will not only be shown the way out, but will equally be made to face the consequences of his actions.

    There will never be room for any sacred cow in the Judiciary, because our image and reputation deserve more crystallization and embellishment than what we are getting. This is, indeed, a task that I enjoin all of us that are directly and remotely connected with the administration of justice in this country to take dearly and closely to our hearts; and it must reflect in our conduct and disposition. This is the time that we have to occupy a place of pride in the hearts of our fellow Nigerians. Yes, it is true that we cannot please everyone through our actions and work, but then, with the right application of the law and the Constitution of the land, which we all have collectively pledged to uphold, we can go a long way to do the things that our conscience will be proud of, and the generality of the public will be happy about. Once our conscience leads the way, every other good thing will naturally follow.

    We have been treated to an unpalatable cocktail of misleading and conflicting judgments as well as frivolous interlocutory orders emanating from courts of coordinate jurisdictions which attempt to make a mockery of our judicial system. This is, largely, an embarrassment to our jurisprudence, and we will not take it lying low. Punitive measures must be taken against such erring judges.

    As I prepare to hand over to my successor in August, 2024, by the grace of Almighty God, it is my  fervent wish and desire to bequeath a robust and prosperous Judiciary that will be the pride of, not only Nigerians, but the African continent.

    •Ariwoola, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), delivered this paper yesterday at the opening of a two-day workshop for the review of the 2023 Election Petition Tribunals/Court and Appeals

  • Judicial reform is a critical success factor (2)

    Judicial reform is a critical success factor (2)

    “With bad laws and good civil servants, it’s still possible to govern. But with bad civil servants even the best laws can’t help.” …Otto von Bismarck – First Chancellor of the German Empire in 1871

    Last week I wrote part 1 of the above topic, adding my voice to the rising calls for reforms in the Nigerian judiciary. Some days ago, the conference on Judicial reforms which began last week was concluded where important resolutions and recommendations were made. I hope that the resolutions reached and recommendations made at the conference will be executed, otherwise the August gathering will end up as just a talk shop, and a sad waste of time.

     In today’s episode, I will continue my contributions on the way forward to reform our judiciary.

     Misconduct and corruption in the judiciary and legal profession

    The rising cases of Judges facing prosecution in recent years which further brought the Judiciary to the limelight for the wrong reasons require introspection of the judiciary and all critical stakeholders. This is in addition to allegations and counter-allegations of procurement of judgments by litigants, especially in political and election cases. These sad developments will further erode the confidence of stakeholders and citizens in the judiciary. A waning respect and confidence in the judiciary spells doom for any nation.

    Based on the aforementioned, there is no provision to excuse/ settle or condone criminality under other laws and regulations of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Therefore, I ask that as part of the Judicial Reforms, judges that engage in such sharp practices to the chagrin of the Judiciary and the legal profession should be punished and stopped from doing so forthwith.

    Another key factor that has engendered corruption is the waning meritocracy in the judiciary just as is our civil/public service. This pervasive culture has propelled undeserving people to become judges and even grow in their careers to the detriment of such a noble profession whereby some people who should not be judges become justices. The embarrassing culture of issuance of all manner of expertes and judgments that even defy precedence reflects the concern of stakeholders that indeed the Bench should be rid of corruption if our polity could ever be salvaged.

    It would not be fair and sincere to talk about corruption in the judiciary without addressing the same issue that I dare say is also bedeviling the legal practice whereby some few lawyers are bringing the respectable profession to disrepute. As the saying goes, “One bad apple spoils the whole lot”. Therefore, while I commend the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) for taking some steps to discipline lawyers who engage in professional misconduct and other forms of corruption, I urge the NBA to be more practical and pragmatic in cleansing the legal profession and protecting its reputation and respectability. It is very important that the credibility of the law profession is not tarnished in order for the practice to be respected and appreciated.

    It follows, therefore, that malaise in the legal practice is affecting the Judiciary. If nothing serious is done, we will soon not have the proper people become judges in Nigeria.

    Growing apathy for a career in the judiciary.

    In my humble opinion, the remuneration and career track in the judiciary is poor and not befitting of officers in the temple of justice, who are expected to live above board, be incorruptible, and adjudicate without fear or favor. Worst is the way retired justices are treated with disdain and disrespect just like how we treat most of our senior citizens who have served the Country with distinction and honor. I still remember an example in the case of the late Justice  .. who was treated in the most unfair and unjust manner, and it is unfortunate. Such actions discourage good judicial practitioners (judges and judicial officers who are in Nigeria’s judiciary is becoming so unattractive that it is gradually and inadvertently becoming a dumping ground for people who have no other career options to become judges or judicial officers and that is dangerous. When depressed, frustrated, and/ or unsuitable people increasingly become judges in Nigeria, then the Country is doomed.

     A career in the judiciary should be when officials in the temple of justice are no longer role models in Nigeria. Gone are the days when Judges, Court registrars, etc. were revered and held in high regard in our society. Even the lawyers mostly are not keen on becoming judges due to poor remuneration, infrastructure, lack of working tools, etc. This ugly trend should change if we are sincere about reforming the judiciary. The working conditions, remuneration, and compensation package for Judges and judicial officers should be attractive enough to attract the best of our citizens in terms of knowledge of the law, intelligence, and integrity.

    The njc and the paradox of self-evaluation

    I align with the call for the removal of the CJN as the chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC) by stakeholders including the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA).

    I also agree that the composition of the NJC, which is the body responsible for disciplining erring judicial officers in the country, is currently defective from a regulatory perspective. The judiciary should know better than anyone, that it should not “self-regulate” itself. Therefore, I commend the recommendation of the NBA that, “members of the NJC should be appointed as follows: six judicial officers appointed by CJN; six lawyers nominated by the National Executive Council of the NBA including the NBA President and six non-lawyers appointed by the President, Federal Republic of Nigeria, subject to the approval of the Senate. And also, that, “The Chairmanship of these bodies should be rotated between the heads of the three constituent groups.”.

    I believe the recommendation on the structure of the NJC will ensure more effective regulation, and consequence management which will ensure discipline, Moving forward.

     Dearth of knowledge and lack of operational inefficiency

    The judiciary is operationally stuck in the past – still using 20th-century manual and archaic operations systems.

    Read Also: Olubadan: Olakulehin’s enthronement takes another twist as Ladoja, kingmakers differ on terms of settlement

     Knowledge gaps in judges’ capacity to update skill sets and competencies – The need for more training and capacity building especially in the use of modern tools and techniques like the use of information technology to fully automate court processes, proceedings, and management including the record of proceedings by judges. A situation where judges are largely manually recording case proceedings using “long hands” is neither efficient nor sustainable in the 21st century. Using archaic methods seriously undermines the effective administration of justice and is a major failure factor for the judiciary. This issue should be treated as a matter of priority.

     Increase of unskilled human resources as support staff in the judiciary

    Manpower in the judiciary is not measuring up to the rising population. It is important to note that just like in the case of insecurity whereby the armed forces are seriously under-manned to keep up with the rising population in Nigeria and the corresponding rise in criminality and insecurity and the resources needed to adequately combat crimes, and terrorism; the judiciary is also seriously under-manned to keep up with the rising population and the corresponding rise in the demand for adjudication to address constitutional, civil, and criminal cases. The current number of Courts across Nigeria, the number of judges at high lowers, and worst still the number of judges at the Appellate Courts and the Supreme Courts leaves much to be desired. Indeed, the workload on the judges is too much, unhealthy, unproductive, and completely unacceptable. This accounts for the snail-speed of our court processes, procedures, systems, and performance which in the end in most cases end up as justices denied; in line with the legal mantra – “justice delayed is justice denied”.

     Undue interference by the executive and financial autonomy for judiciary

    One of the critical failure factors of an effective judiciary in Nigeria is undue interference by the executive in the workings of the Judiciary especially given the methodology of the appointment of Judges in Nigeria whereby is based on opaque criteria and mostly hinged on privileges rather than merit, competence and integrity then we are doomed

     Another critical failure factor for the judiciary is the situation whereby the judiciary has to continuously go cap-in-hand to the Executive arm of Government at federal and Subnational levels for financing. I join in the advocacy that in order for the judiciary to be fully reformed and satisfactorily effective, the judiciary must be financially independent.

     In closing, I am of the strong opinion, that It is only a reformed, modern, well-resourced (man and material), well-equipped, empowered, and autonomous Judiciary that will significantly add value to transparency and accountability; foster and entrench fairness, equity and justice (or a sense of it) in Nigeria.

  • Judicial reform is a crititcal success factor

    Judicial reform is a crititcal success factor

    Background

    The 2-day National Summit on Justice 2024, organized by the Federal Ministry of Justice in collaboration with the European Union, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, the United Nations Children’s Fund, and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime; commenced two days ago (24/04/2024), is a welcome development. I commend the Minister of Justice and Attorney of the Federation, Mr. Lateef Fagbemi SAN for organising this important Summit. I also note that some days ago the President of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA, Mr. Yakubu Maikyau SAN, stated that there will be focused discussions on judicial reforms during the upcoming 2024 NBA Conference. I hope that there will be sincere, honest, and forward-thinking deliberations during all the events, and more importantly, I hope that a strategy will be crafted for the betterment of the Judiciary in particular, particularly the legal profession and the generality of Nigeria in general. I believe that it is only when we fix our judiciary, that we can be able to truly fix our polity.

     I am happy that there is a growing consensus amongst critical stakeholders with regard to the issues in the judiciary and the need for critical reforms. Indeed the positions taken by  President Bola Tinubu (represented by Vice President Kashim Shettima), Senate President Godswill Akpabio, the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice Olukayode Ariwoola, and the Minister of Justice and Attorney of the Federation re-echo the consensus about the malaise in the Judiciary. The consensus of the need for a reform of our judiciary is interestingly reflective of a position taken about 77 years ago by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the former Premier of the Western region of Nigeria. In 1947, the late Chief Awolowo wrote that “Corruption is the greatest defect of the Native Court system.” He complained that not only did judges take bribes, people used their connections to enrich themselves and avoid punishment for their crimes. Does that sound familiar?

     Accordingly, I am making this contribution as a patriotic Nigerian, a friend of the legal profession from which the judiciary sprouts and grows. I am also speaking on this topic as a critical stakeholder – being a litigant in ongoing or decided matters, as a Plaintiff or Defendant; where I have experienced first-hand, the impact of good and bad judicial practice, especially as a victim of miscarriage of justice.

    Indeed, due to a lack of consistent, honest, and sustained evaluation, citizens’ engagements, and reforms; the judiciary has inadvertently and in some cases I dare say, deliberately become part of the problem rather than a solution provider for a better Nigeria in terms of the improvement of our democracy, fight against corruption, other forms of criminality,  and the entrenchment of fairness, equity, and justice in our societies. The judiciary has sadly become an enabler/ promoter/ partaker of corruption,  erosion of our value system, and degradation of our society, and part of the reason why the executive and legislative arms of government in Nigeria have been underperforming with no consequences.

     Therefore, based on the aforementioned facts, I dare say that the inability of the executive and legislative arms to deliver the dividends of democracy in Nigeria is partly due to some of the shortcomings of the judiciary. 

     The judiciary should be able to play its role without fear or favor and not allow itself to be used to undermine the process of reforming our Country while ensuring that justice is served to all. While undertaking reforms, it is also important not to forget that the judiciary is also part of the Civil Service.

     Challenges and ways forward

    The best way to chart the way forward for the judiciary, is to dimension some of the key challenges bedeviling the Judiciary, because only then could we be able to develop a strategy and blueprint for Judicial reform in Nigeria. I humbly illustrate below and in subsequent episodes, what I consider as key challenges and “ways forward”, that must be addressed in order to reform the judiciary as a matter of national priority.

    •  Plethora of Exparte Orders and conflicting judgments are becoming anathemas to our polity

    One of the classing examples of how the judiciary enables wanton corruption in Nigeria is the ugly trend how persons and organizations lean/ hide under section 46 of the 1999 Constitution as amended, to secure injunctions/ judgments to stop investigations, especially on matters of corruption, other forms of criminality, and even terrorism; to the extent that judges grant orders to stop statutory bodies from performing their constitutional responsibilities, which leave much to be desired. This is a serious issue that is becoming an anathema to the progress of Nigeria. In most of the cases where such injunctions or judgments are given, it is very clear that the prayers of the applicants are out of place at no moment. Additionally, some of the injunctions are granted in clear violation of the constitutional provisions given those Arms or agencies of Government, for example; the National Assembly in line with Sections 88 and 89 of the 1999 Constitution, or the provisions of the Acts of the EFCC, ICPC, Nigeria Police, DSS, etc. In any case, it is elementary to note that anyone trying to stop an investigation into criminal allegations is actually indicating that he/ she is trying to avoid investigation and possible prosecution, and therefore, such applications should not be granted by the honorable justices. This is because innocent parties will set the records straight and clear their names when they face an investigation. Unfortunately, we are all witnesses to this ugly trend which if not stopped, will certainly legitimize corrupt practices, and all forms of criminality including terrorism and acts that could threaten our territorial integrity. These are serious issues with potentially serious consequences on our polity, and should not be entertained by any well-meaning judges or citizens of Nigeria.

     In addition, the ongoing practice by judges of cognate jurisdictions granting conflicting/ countermanding injunctions/judgments, especially in political and criminal matters.; in my opinion amounts to misconduct by justices and judicial officers. This is especially so when senior members of the bench (serving and retired Judges) have also re-echoed these concerns, so far, to no avail. I urge that these practices that bring disrepute to the judiciary should be estopped forthwith so as to reclaim the reputation and sanctity of the temples of justice (i.e. the Courts) in Nigeria and consequently give more respect and gravitas to the judicial pronouncements of our judges.

    Read Also: Tinubu to declare open 2024 national judicial summit

    Moreover, to put things in context, there are no lacunas in our laws regarding the principles of separation of powers, purviews, and causes of action, for statutory bodies e.g. arms of government like the National Assembly, law enforcement, regulatory and prosecutorial institutions. There are clear provisions of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whereby the party or persons that are/are not satisfied with the decision/ action of the statutory bodies undertaking the investigation, could go to Court and seek protection and/ or redress. However, going to Court should be done only if the investigation is undertaken wrongly or concluded wrongly. But to pre-empt a criminal investigation with a court order to stop the investigation ab initio presupposes guilt and/or attempt to obstruct justice which in itself is an offense under our laws. Therefore, for honorable justices to stop or frustrate an investigation that may unravel corruption, criminality, terrorism or threat to national security is tantamount to promoting corrupt practices and other forms of criminality. Such injunctions/Orders have been frustrating the duties of the National Assembly, the Nigeria Police Force, EFCC, ICPC, DSS, the Military, regulatory bodies, etc.

    Accordingly, on the basis of legal reasoning, the judiciary should allow and support statutory institutions to perform their duties, rather than prevent valid investigation or obstruct the principles of separation of powers that they- the judiciary should protect! Legislative, regulatory investigative, and prosecutorial institutions should be allowed to undertake their mandates as enshrined in the Constitution. If some judges continue the habit of forestalling investigations under the guise of fundamental human rights, as long as the investigation (civil or criminal) does not violate any constitutional provision; then that Judge, in my opinion, is supporting the obstruction of justice. 

    Based on the aforementioned, there is no provision to excuse/ settle or condone criminality under other laws and regulations of this Country. Consequently, I ask that as part of the Judicial Reforms, judges that engage in such sharp practices to the chagrin of the Judiciary and the legal profession should be stopped from doing so forthwith.

    I will continue elucidating more of my insights and perspectives on this very important topic of judicial reforms in subsequent episodes.

  • A judicial trash

    A judicial trash

      In several respects, Nigeria is the perfect example of how elite discontent and disaffection undermine and ultimately threaten the very foundation of democratic rule.  Far more than the executive and the legislature, a strong, sound and ethically upright judiciary is the bedrock of modern democracies. This is why this column often strains itself to avoid casting aspersions on the integrity and moral rectitude of their lordships.

       This however is not a blanket endorsement. There is something obviously rotten in the kingdom of Denmark. With a former military ruler and twice democratically elected civilian president trying his best to de-market democracy and de-legitimize the current dispensation with his empty prattle about Afro-democracy and youth empowerment through positive disruption, a novel kind of state destabilization has berthed in Nigeria.

     Unfortunately, the atmosphere of deepening and unrelenting siege is compounded by the Chief Justice of the federation who frequently and publicly lashes out at enemies of the judiciary. When massive hunger in the land is factored into the equation, it may well be time to wonder once again about the fate of liberal democracy among democratically challenged elite groups.                                                                                              

         From now on and whatever may be the provocation, the chief justice of the federation must refrain from descending from the supreme and exalted altar of judicial nobility and rectitude to slug it out with intellectual thugs and psychological hooligans who abound in the system. As far as this lot are concerned, both democracy and the nation itself can go to blazes if they do not have their way. The danger in joining them in unseemly affray is that they have nothing to lose.

       What the reader is about to read was written four and half years ago when we thought we had reached the limits of the judicial maelstrom that had engulfed the nation. But it reads so fresh and apposite to our current circumstances that it could have been written yesterday. As a notable philosopher famously rued, what we think is the limit is not always the limit.

       The lesson from all this is that if we do not want to succumb to an apocalyptic tragedy which will consume everything we have built in the last quarter of a century and all the heroic sacrifices many have put up for democratic rule, we must begin to re-examine the consequences of elite discord and the lack of a critical unanimity among the ruling elite in this country. 

    The Rise of the Judiciarate

    • How elite discontent threatens democracy

        As Nigeria roils in its most combustible presidential electoral dispute since the advent of the Fourth Republic, it is time to understand the role of elite discord in the travails of democratic rule, particularly in postcolonial Africa. The loss or lack of elite amity impacts on certain institutions of the state in a very fundamental way, often opening the door directly to chaos. Unless we focus our attention on this root problem, we will be beating about the bush for a long time to come.

      The judiciarate is a very strange coinage indeed. But it rises to the peculiar circumstances of the Nigerian judiciary. Before now, Nigeria’s electoral destiny was determined by two principalities: the electorate and the selectorate.

       The electorate elects to select while the selectorate selects to elect. No question about which is more powerful. As it was famously observed, it is not those who vote that matter but those who count. But what happens in the case of a tie or a dubious deadlock between the selectorate and the electorate?

       This is where and when the third principality, or what we propose as the judiciarate, kicks in as a tie breaker between the electorate and the selectorate. For the past forty years beginning with the Second Republic, the judiciary has been a looming presence in Nigeria’s bitter and often acrimonious electoral disputes. Despite increasing voters’ awareness and a sharp rise in political consciousness, the judiciarate is increasingly called upon to determine the actual winners of disputed elections.

      In the final analysis, it is the judiciary that counts. And as the National Question bites harder, the state can no longer count on it. Surely what counts so decisively, so finally and infallibly can also become an instrument of political terror, driving the fear of the Lord into the state, particularly if they are not in political alignment.

       This is where the insurmountable contradictions begin. If the judiciary is so powerful and implacable why was its principal helmsman so messily and mercilessly defenestrated by the executive arm? Why are so many of its principal luminaries in tactical retreat?

       On the one hand, the onerous burden and added responsibility of being the nation principal electoral adjudicator has added immensely to the prestige and grandeur of the judiciary. Yet on the other hand,  it is precisely at the point of grandeur and glory that the judiciary’s vulnerabilities and infirmities appear in bold relief for all to see. It is a damning paradox and this is what is responsible for the tragedy of Walter Onnoghen and his fall from grace.

      Onnoghen, an otherwise brilliant and soberly-comported jurist, showed that he was a callow amateur on the political chessboard. There were rumours of a creeping partisanship and of being sighted where he ought never to have been sighted. He was beginning to prematurely flex his muscles in a mistaken belief in the power and omnipotence of the judiciarate.

       There were rumours of compromising phone calls and allegations of unhealthy chumminess with a powerful governor. It was the scary prospects of his adjudicating wrongly in what promises to be the greatest judicial showdown of electoral adjudication that led to Onnoghen being summarily unhorsed from his high horse.

       Power neophytes may scoff at the sheer bloody-mindedness of it all. But these things matter to those who take power seriously. And it did not begin yesterday. At the turn of the nineties shortly after the publication of former president Obasanjo’s Not My Will , snooper sat down to lunch with a very distinguished Nigerian who had played a very prominent role in the electoral abracadabra that led to the emergence of Alhaji Shehu Shagari as the president of the Federal Republic in his majestic north London pile.

        Obviously irritated by some of the revelations in the book, the great man suddenly blurted out: “ Now that Obasanjo is running his mouth all over the place, what if I were to bring out my own confidential files which show that……. “(Details withheld ). It shows that contrary to public disinformation, the military junta knew well beforehand that the electoral showdown of 1979 was going to end at the Supreme Court.

       The 1983 elections showed the judiciary wielding its utmost powers in what is in retrospect a dress rehearsal of the current powers of the judiciarate. A major gubernatorial electoral verdict was reversed to avoid further conflagration. The electoral umpire arrived in his Benin ancestral homestead in a military tank. The putative governor himself fled to Lagos in disguise as the electorate rose to welcome him.

       In the old East, the drama was equally riveting. On the day of judgement, the redoubtable C.C Onoh was seen prowling and pacing up and down the court’s corridor even as he munched banana and groundnut waiting to see which judge would have the folly and temerity to reverse his mandate. In Imo state, Samuel Mbakwe, a former Colonel in the Biafran Reservist Force, dispensed with mere formalities and simply went to the radio station to declare himself elected for a second term. A gun slide, as General TY Danjuma famously put it, followed the NPN landslide. But that was that.

    The aborted Third Republic was full of significant surprises. For the first time in the history of the nation, the electorate as Nigerian masses had a full measure of the selectorate as military and civilian oligarchy.  In a flagrant breach of the rule of engagement, the selectorate began stonewalling. It was obvious that they were not interested in democratic election but the perpetuation of oligarchic rule. The Nigerian people told them to go to hell.

       The military state went into full panic mode. In desperation, the junta turned to the emerging judiciarate for a life line. It obtained a black market injunction from an Abuja High Court which forbade the election to hold. In a controversial broadcast to justify the annulment, General Babangida cited the various law suits which he said were capable bringing the judiciary to ridicule and public infamy.

       He had completely forgotten that his own ouster decrees had expressly forbidden judicial interference in the conduct of the election. It was the military state itself that was bringing the judiciary to public ridicule and infamy. In retrospect, it was a remarkable benchmark in the pilgrim’s progress towards demystification, dishonour and disgrace.

    Read Also: Ex-militants: Tinubu’s Supreme Court victory judicial stamp of legitimacy

      But you cannot cure leprosy with skin ointment. As the Fourth Republic unfolded, it became obvious that the grave symptoms had developed into a full blown ailment. The judiciarate was in full bloom, like a monstrous flower. It was also at this point that the judicial vulnerabilities began to manifest in sharp relief. Curiously enough, it coincided with the collapse of the Obasanjo Settlement of 1998/1999 which made it possible for the Abubakar military regime to transit to a civilian regime with some honour and a semblance of equity.

      It will be recalled that in 1999, strong remonstrations and pressures from all sides of the political divide persuaded Chief Olu Falae to drop his judicial challenge to Obasanjo’s victory at the polls. Many felt that this early challenge to civil rule might open the backdoor for ambitious military officers who were yet to be persuaded that the party was over. It showed the substantial degree of elite buy in to the new democratic dispensation.

      By the end of 2003, particularly after General Olusegun Obasanjo decided to annex the South West in an electoral blitzkrieg the like of which had never been seen in the history of the country, the old western component of the détente disintegrated. It was also about this time that a vicious battle for political supremacy commenced between Obasanjo and his deputy.

       But despite this and the spate of assassination of leading figures, Obasanjo managed to keep the lid on the roiling cauldron through a combination of intimidation, cajolery and sheer force of personality. It was a battle of political and psychological stamina, not talk of mental alertness. Four years after the departure of the military, Nigeria was back in the full default mode of political belligerence.

       By 2007, after Obasanjo, as a parting gift, managed to impose Umaru Yar’Adua on the nation in an electoral heist which has since entered the history books as the worst election in the history of democracy, the lid was blown open. Politically sensitive and acutely aware of the crisis of legitimacy which heralded his tenure, Yar’Adua wisely refrained from the fray.

       It was then left to the judiciary to clear the electoral mess. Their Lordships were compelled to add Mathematics to their core competence and professional proficiency. Beginning with the brilliant judgement of the Edo Tribunal led by Justice Umeadi which restored the mandate of Adams Oshiomhole, judicial reversals of purported electoral victory followed in Ondo, Osun, Anambra and Ekiti in no particular order.

         At the federal level, presidential elections were fiercely disputed from 2003 through 2007, 2011 and now in 2019. There were two dissenting minority judgements in 2003 and 2007 by messrs Nsofor and Oguntade. Both, courtesy of General Buhari, have since become Nigeria’s ambassador to the US and High Commissioner to UK respectively.

       As it wades deeper to clear the electoral mess, the judiciary is sucked into the vortex of corruption and sleaze revealing the moral and ethical infirmities of many of their lordships. . The deep entanglement of the Nigerian judiciary in politics has been its greatest undoing to date. The debasement of politics has spread its tentacles to other state institutions.

       The debasement of politics occurs when there is no substantial elite consensus or fundamental amity among political elite about the core values that drive national goals. In such circumstances, anything goes and everything is game. Successful democracies are driven by elite unanimity about where the country is headed. 

       Where elite consensus is lacking as a result of multi-ethnic politics or where a hegemonic group decides to appropriate the political patrimony of the entire political class in pursuit of sectional interests, the road is open to centrifugal forces from below to lay siege on the state. There are written and unwritten rules of engagement. Anything short of that leads to a political jungle of Hobbesian dimensions such as we are currently hosting in Nigeria.

       Since we like putting the cart before the horse, it is useful to point out that the sanitization of the judiciary cannot proceed without a deep cleansing of our errant political culture. Until we come to our senses, there will be many more political and judicial casualties.

    First published in February, 2019  

    The time of Henry the K

    The human community is like a huge broomstick. The sticks keep falling off no matter what you do. And no matter how long you hang around, it will be your turn to fall off one day. This week, it was the turn of Henry Kissinger, the foremost American diplomat/statesman who bade us farewell this week at the ripe old age of one hundred years.

     It is a mark of his brilliance, prodigious intellect and sheer staying power that Kissinger was churning out books well past his nineties, long after the academic demise of those of his petty and jealous former colleagues who prevented him from resuming his academic career after his distinguished service to his nation ended in 1976 with the defeat of Henry Ford by Jimmy Carter. Thereafter, the Bavarian-born former refugee fleeing Hitler’s imminent holocaust with his parents re-established himself as a writer, consultant and freelance international trouble shooter.

      Detested and deified in equal measure, Kissinger was a figure of international controversy and contention. Many hailed him as the most consequential American diplomat and statesman of the epoch, while many more dismiss him as a divisive and polarizing figure; a Zionist war-monger who never lived down the formative trauma of Nazi Germany.

      The truth must lie between the two. Kissinger himself once famously said that international diplomacy is often a choice between two contending evils. The third evil are those making the choice.  But for a man to rise from the seedy slums of Bavaria to the pinnacle of American statehood all in one generation is an  epic slog through adversity which is nothing short of heroic. Adieu, Henry.

  • Judicial correspondents elect new leaders

    Judicial correspondents elect new leaders

    The National Association of Judicial Correspondents (NAJUC), Lagos Branch has elected executive council officers to run its affairs for the next three years.

    The new exco is led by Olugbenga Soyele of Leadership Newspaper as Chairman and Babajide Leigh of Silverbird Television as Vice Chairman, among other exco members.

    They were elected during polling last Friday, and sworn in by the Chairman of the association’s electoral committee, Wale Igbintade of the ThisDay  Newspaper.

    Speaking on behalf of the newly elected officials, Soyele thanked members for finding them worthy to serve. He assured that the new Exco will work hard to take the association to greater heights.

    The chairman promised to prioritise the welfare of all the members, as well as ensure that their interests are protected at all times.

    He further stated that the new executive officers were committed to upholding the objectives and ethics of journalism, and would stick to the media logic of social responsibility, ethics and values.

    He promised to improve on knowledge acquisition of members by organising workshops, seminars, and webinars.

    Read Also: ‘Preventing extra-judicial killing complex but achievable’

    Soyele further maintained that the executive council would effectively engage all stakeholders and build new relationships to make sure that their reportorial duties were carried out in a conducive environment devoid of fear and intimidation.

    He praised the immediate past chairman of the association, Peter Fowoyo of the DailyTimes, for his commitment and dedication to the general good of members of the association.

    The NAJUC Chairman praised Fowoyo  for giving his best to the association, saying “He has indeed done very well. We will continue to tap from his experience and vast connections.”

    Soyele added: “I also appreciate the Electoral Committee, led by Wale Igbintade of Thisday Newspaper, for putting in place a free, fair and credible process that guaranteed a peaceful and orderly transition of leadership.

    “I urge us to continue as one great family bound in unity and brotherhood. A united people cannot be defeated. When we all work together, the association will be formidable and respected. What we can achieve together will be bigger and better than what any individual can achieve.”

  • Musdapher: Exit of a judicial reformer

    “As we sit at trial, we also stand on trial” –Dahiru Musdapher (July 15, 1942 –Jan 23, 2018 )

    In virtually all his speeches as the new helmsman of this deeply-fissured judicial institution, he spoke so poignantly about an edifice about to cave in. He would take the burden of salvaging this structure, bearing the weight of its decay on his frail, elderly shoulders, and for 11 months, even as he reeled and staggered on wobbly legs, he had vowed still that “this house will not fall under our watch”. And although by the time he had fretted his hour upon the judicial stage, the ‘house’ had still not been re-built, yet it had also not fallen. Thanks to the juridical wisdom of one who believed the law both in ‘statute’ and in ‘action’. Because even as they feared that he might be conservative and attempt to preserve an un-progressive status quo, he had turned out to be a radical-revolutionary, prescribing drastic reforms that the conservative judicial order is still un-receptive to.

    And soon ‘The Nation’ Newspaper in its ‘Comment and Analysis’ page of 11/20/11 would say, about him: “we have a radical jurist in the mould of the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi at the apex of the country’s judiciary”; and the ‘Leadership’ Editorial of 09/25/11 had said: “Though Musdapher has been an establishment person… he has made some pronouncements… which indicate he can spring some radical surprises”.

    Eleven Months

    Justice Dahiru Musdapher was appointed the 12th Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN on 28th August 2011, succeeding Justice Katsina-Alu. And although he had barely 11 months to serve, he made the most judicious use of his tenure by instituting what many Nigerians believed was the most holistic and most widely propagated Judicial Reform Program targeting, at once, the institution’s juridical malady, its infrastructural decay and a negative public perception. Musdapher was in fact the first Chief Justice to arraign the Judiciary to the court of public opinion -stirring a judicial hornet’s nest that was both an inquisition on the system and a clarion call for its urgent reform. And it was about this vision that Itse Sagay would say “all these indicate the actions of a man who wants to leave a lasting legacy… If he carries on like this, what he is going to pack into his short term of 11 months is going to be something we have not seen for the 10 years before that.”

    And so it was. Justice Musdapher would tell Nigerians sordid truth about the Nigerian legal system that no Chief Justice ever did. It was about the much he could do in the little time that he had. He was the first Chief Justice not to follow the sedate, publicity-shy style of his predecessors because he was not about to keep quiet and sanctify the aura of judicial secrecy that had always shrouded the operations of the judicial system. And so to entrench the reforms, Musdapher had made his tenure a very public one, constituting himself into a crusader, breaking the yoke of judicial esoterism by publicly confessing to serious challenges bothering particularly on the ethical and moral substructures of the Nigerian judiciary, its dilapidated courts, its decrepit administrative machinery, and worst of all its dismal continuing education program, which, he would admit, had occasioned serious decline in the intellectual capacity of judicial officers to effectively deliver justice.

    Interfacing with the public was the Chief Justice’s clever way of getting a crucial message across to Nigerians, namely that the legal system was bedeviled no less by archaic laws and moribund procedures, than it was by a decaying infrastructure and by a corrupt bench. And this situation Musdapher said, was not helped by a culprit Nigerian Bar which -although outside the court is famed for moral suasion and a toga of ‘corrective’ disposition- in the court it had always been prosecutorially indecorous, permitting abuse of ethics and rules of professional conduct. Nor was it helped, he said, by a moribund, technically-manipulable body of laws which at best only give unconscionable lawyers a field day in court to advocate in a manner that clogs rather than free the wheel of justice.

    The consequence of these Musdapher said naturally manifested in a serious downturn in the public’s perception of the Nigerian Judiciary; so that over the years the Judiciary had lost a great deal of the confidence of the public, and Nigerians no longer believed they could get justice from the courts of their land. Many in fact saw the Judiciary more like a zone of despair than the proverbial ‘last hope of the common man’ that it ought to be. It was blunt confessions like these by Justice Musdapher that prompted the ‘Independent’ Newspaper in its Editorial of 12/16/11 to admit “Not in recent times has any Chief Justice… spoken the minds of Nigerians, and echoed their frustrations and disappointments with such fearless candor and unremitting boldness”.

    The Avenging Angel

    By openly admitting to the existence of a judicial Augean Stable, Justice Musdapher had first fulfilled the righteousness in the maxim which requires that ‘those who come to equity must come with clean hands. And thus having confessed to the existence of a malignant state of affairs in an institution to which he belonged, he had set for himself the moral basis to mount the chivalry charge of redemption and to assume the role of an avenging angel. And because his ideas on how to reform the Judiciary were revolutionary, Musdapher, in order to get the victim-public own the reform, had picked especially popular and controversial causes that resonated deeply with the people. The Guardian Editorial of 11/25/11, credited him with fighting obnoxious causes such as “plea bargain, which he described as of dubious origin and alien to our Constitution, the indiscriminate granting often of frivolous ex-parte motions to delay judicial process, the flagrant abuse of citizens’ fundamental rights by the granting of ‘holding charges’ to ill-prepared prosecutors, and the granting of injunctions to restrain officers of the law from performing their duties in the course of justice”

    But like the 18th Century American jurist Roscoe Pound, Musdapher believed also that although “The law must be stable, it must not stand still”. Because he had publicly also propagated the idea of ‘Special courts’ with judges dedicated strictly to cases on corruption and also the idea of ‘suspended sentence’ as practicable remedy to the problem of prison congestion in Nigeria; When he announced publicly that Nigerian judges had no reason whatsoever to hear criminal matters beyond a period of 6 months, it was the much that a Chief Justice –without the luxury of judicial fiat to issue corrective orders- could do to advance the course of speedy dispensation of justice. And if this revelation –coming from the nation’s number one judicial officer, had done nothing to reverse the malaise, at least it had exposed to the public ‘truth’ of a judicial kind, that the problem of our justice system is not only about complex or defective laws but also about the attitude of judges and lawyers towards complex and defective laws.

    Said ‘The Independent’ Newspaper in its Editorial of 12/16/11: “At a time when the much touted fight against corruption is tottering and enveloped in doubt and uncertainties, the statements of the Chief Justice certainly hit the bull’s eye and struck a resonating cord in the collective conscience of the people”.

    Radical Reforms

    But Musdapher’s was not all about lamentation and no salvation. His reform program had in fact recommended changes that were no less holistic and many of which, in fact, were radical and revolutionary. He had proposed among other things: (1) review of the requirements for appointment of judges so that in addition to pure ‘merit’, ‘morals’ should also count, whereby nominees for judicial appointment are subjected to public scrutiny by way of publishing their names for public comments; (2) extension of the current mode of judicial appointments beyond only judicial officers to include those outside the Judiciary with ‘distinction in legal practice’ (namely private lawyers) and those with ‘academic excellence’ (intellectuals) -the objective being to provide wider diversity of experience and add quality to judicial deliberations in court and (3) appointment of ‘lay persons with integrity, experience and courage’ to serve on the National Judicial Council, NJC.

    He also proposed: (a) creation of a separate specialized institution in place of the National Judicial Council, NJC to handle discipline and removal of judicial officers and thus to allow the NJC concentrate on the duty of formulating broad policies for, and judicial appointments in, the Judiciary; (b) review and streamlining of the structure of courts with a view to making the judgments of courts clear, fair and just and consistent with the doctrine and rules of judicial precedents –to avoid conflicting judgments especially from the various divisions of the Court of Appeal and (c) expansion of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to include ‘Advisory Jurisdiction’ on application by the President or Governors -so that rather than by normal appeals, the Apex Court can handle a good number of matters by ‘advice’ instead

    And since many of these recommendations required legislative amendments –not merely administrative action- it’s been about seven years now since Justice Musdapher submitted a Constitutional Amendment Proposal to the NASS to consider. But suffice it to say that virtually nothing has been done since then -proving again that the problems of the Judiciary, transcend the mere existence of defective laws, or the advocatorial manipulations of unconscionable lawyers or yet the judicial indiscretion of corrupt judges. Most of the problems of the Judiciary result from the ineptitude of a legislative arm not willing to propose legal reforms and not responsive even to the proposals by others, for reform.

    Epilogue

    And as we still mourn the death of this great judicial reformer, Dahiru Musdapher, it is auspicious to end this modest tribute with the ‘National Mirror Editorial of 09/29/11 in which the Paper wrote “Let it be on record that Justice Musdapher’s tenure restored Nigerians’ faith in their Judiciary”.

    May his soul continue to rest in peace. And may Allah grant him Aljannat Fiddaus.

     

    • Adamu was Media Adviser to the late Chief Justice.