The complaint by the Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution, Okoi Obono-Obla, that his cases are stuck at the appellate courts has, once again, drawn attention to the persistent problem of delay in court process. Although efforts are being made by court administrators to address this age-long challenge, lawyers suggest measures to tackle it. ERIC IKHILAE writes.
It is said that justice delayed is justice denied. Many Nigerians have been denied justice due to the long time it takes to decide cases. Sometimes, cases last as long as 20 years or more, before a final judgment is delivered. In some cases, the litigants do not live to witness the outcome.
Special Assistant to the President on Prosecution Chief Okoi Obono-Obla stirred the hornet’s nest when he said a case he filed at the Supreme Court 10 years ago was yet to be heard. He is not alone. There are instances of cases that have been hanging at the apex court, after going through the High Court and Court of Appeal, both of which last for nearly 10 years.
The Mobil workers’ case
Mr, Okon Johnson, now in his 70s, and about 859 other Nigerians were engaged as security personnel sometime in 1990, by Mobil Producing Nigeria Limited.
In 2000, a dispute arose about their status, with Mobil claiming to have transferred their employment to the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), and that it engaged them as supernumerary (SPY) police personnel and not actual staff.
The workers later sued at the Federal High Court, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State. The court in 2006 entered judgment in their favour. Mobil appealed the decision at the Court of Appeal, Calabar, Cross Rivers State. In a unanimous judgment on May 21, 2009, the Appeal Court held, among others, that the Nigerians were Mobil’s employees.
Mobil appealed to the Supreme Court in 2010, but, till date, although many of the affected workers have died, the appeal is still waiting to be heard by the apex court, seven years later.
The Gadi case
Alhaji Garba Mohammed Gadi was the Deputy Governor of Bauchi State. He was impeached in a controversial manner in August 2009. He challenged his impeachment up to the Supreme Court, via his appeal marked: SC.720/2013, filed on October 22, 2013.
But, till date, the appeal is yet to be heard because of adjournments, the last of which was on May 18, this year, when the court, again, adjourned to January 16, next year. Alhaji Gadi, however, died on August 1, this year without having his case resolved.
The Offoboche case
There is also the case of Dr. Mattias Oko Offoboche, who lodged an appeal at the Supreme Court on January 1, 2006 in respect of a dispute between him and a relative named Cletus Clay (Oko) Offoboche.
Although his lawyers filed the appellant’s brief on October 15, 2010 in respect of the appeal marked: SC. 224/2009, the respondents did not file any brief and the court has, till date, not assigned a date for its hearing.
But, while waiting and hoping that his appeal would be heard one day, and a verdict reached, the appellant died in 2015, about five years after lodging the appeal.
The above three cases reflect the experience of ordinary litigants in the courts. It is generally believed that court process in the country is very slow, with the appellate courts being the major culprits.
Many have, before now, complained about this unhealthy development, while others offered suggestions on the way out, but without any meaningful changes, forcing many litigants to give up hope.
Public attention was again drawn to this age-long problem when Obono-Obla expressed frustration over the seeming unwillingness of court’s managers to reform the system for effectiveness.
He cited his personal experience to explain the negative impact of this problem on, not only the psyche of many hapless Nigerian litigants, but how it works to discourage foreigners from investing in the country.
Perhaps to show that it was responsive, the Supreme Court, in a September 7, letter to Obono-Obla, sought to be furnished with details of his cases stuck in the court’s Registry.
The Supreme Court’s Chief Registrar, Mrs. Hadizatu Mustapha, who signed the letter, said she was instructed by the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen, to get details of the appeals filed by Obono-Obla at the Supreme and Appeal courts, but which are yet to be attended to.
Obono-Obla, in his response, dated September 12, this year, gave details of about 13 of his cases sitting at the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court unattended to. He said seven were at the Suprme Court, while six were at the Court of Appeal.
Among the cases he cited are those of Gadi and Offoboche, who have since died without their cases being attended to.
Causes of delay
Observers have attributed the delay in the court process to a number of factors. They cited the continued application of old laws and rules, the reliance on technicalities and the reluctance of court’s administrators to adopt modern ways of court management, with emphasis on the use of information and communication technology (ICT).
They noted that while the courts could, on their own, amend their rules of procedure to allow speed, they should be able to lobby the Legislature to effect the needed legal reforms and constitutional amendments.
There is also the problem of attitude of court officials, who do not exhibit much commitment as required. There are also judges, who, in most instances, are reluctant to take hold of proceedings and, in the process, allow delays on the part of lawyers.
It has also been argued that lawyers contribute to delay in the court process by resorting to all manner of delay tactics where they believe that their clients have no case.
Obono-Obla argued that the problem was mainly with the managers of the court system, who appear reluctant to reform the system. He wondered why the judicial system is reluctant to change the old ways of doing things.
He said: “The judicial system is just not working. Looking at how judges are frustrating trial of corrupt politicians, despite the provisions of the Administrations of Criminal Justice Act,2015 (ACJA). Section 396 (3) says matters must be heard day to day, but judges are not enforcing it.
“To obtain a court ruling, you must pay through your nose; to obtain a certified true copy of judgment, you must pay through the nose; to cause a court bailiff to serve a court process you must pay through your nose. To get a case to be assigned after filing, you must pay through your nose.
“Even in the Supreme Court, to get an appeal assigned for hearing, you must pay through your nose. The registries in the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court respectively are a study in chaos, disorderliness and confusion.
“The court has refused to embrace ICT to organizse its registry in line with international best practices. The judges hate progressive and forward-looking lawyers, who don’t parley with them to institutionalise corruption in the justice delivery system,” Obono-Obla said.
A Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Sebastine Hon, also agreed that the inability to reform the system accounted for the delay in courts.
He said most delays, at the appellate courts, result from the time the court spends in considering interlocutory applications.
Another lawyer, Maxwell Chukwueke ,blamed the court and its officials for the delay in the court system.
“Sincerely, the pace of justice administration in this country is discouraging. Unfortunately, this problem has been with us for ages, but we refused to address it. The problem is actually with those managing the court system. This include the judges and other court officials.
“To me, the decision to ensure prompt justice dispensation in the country rests solely with the managers of the court. For instance, the decision to assign cases and fix hearing dates are entirely that of the court. And, delays mostly arise at these stages,” he said.
Past efforts at curbing delay
Observers have, however, argued that the persistent delay in the court system was not because efforts have not been made in the past to address it, but that the problem remained because there appeared not to be a strong enough determination on the part of stakeholders to effect the needed change.
A major attempt was made in 2011 to address the problem, when then CJN, Justice Dahiru Mustadpher, constituted a 29-man committee headed by one of his predecessors, Justice Mohammed Uwais.
The committee made far-reaching recommendations, majority of which formed the content of a 52-point Judicial Reform Bill submitted to the National Assembly in July, 2012, by Justice Musdapher.
Justice Musdapher had, while presenting the Bill before the House of Representatives, said it was intended to “reposition and reform the Judiciary” to meet Nigerians’ expectations.
A core proposition in the Bill is to abolish the constitutional provision that appeal was of right, that any aggrieved litigant could appeal a decision of the lower courts.
By the proposal, the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was to be altered with the provision that appeals from the Court of Appeal, on interlocutory decisions and other matters shall only be by leave of the Supreme Court.
This proposal was intended, among others, to allow the apex court control the appeal process, with the aim of determining the type and quality of appeals that brought before it.
Justice Musdapher also suggested a modification of the mode of judicial appointments in deference to the call for the diversification of the pool from which such appointments, particularly to superior courts, are made.
It was also recommended that the process of appointing judges be subjected to public scrutiny, whereby identities of shortlisted candidates are made public to enable members of the society assess the would-be judges and comment on their capacity.
The measures were intended to ensure that only fit and proper persons, who are committed to the job, are appointed as judges.
But, unfortunately, not only was the Bill not passed, most of the other recommendations by the Uwais committee are yet to be implemented.
Current efforts at tackling delay
On his assumption of office earlier this year, Justice Onnoghen constituted a 13-member committee to suggest ways of reforming the Judiciary for effectiveness.
While inaugurating the committee, the CJN said: ”You will agree with me that over time, the Judiciary, due to its conservative nature, had stagnated in its operations, while the other arms of government have continued to undergo reforms. It is now more urgent than ever to undertake a holistic reform of the Judiciary.”
The committee headed by the Secretary of the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), Mrs. Bilkisu Bashir, was mandated to, among others, “undertake a comprehensive review of the operations and condition of service of the Nigeria Judiciary with a view to enhancing general efficiency and effectiveness.”
It was also required “to recommend long and short-term measures that would help in the general improvement of the welfare/condition of service of judicial and non-judicial officers, and to make any other recommendations that would help in repositioning the Judiciary for optimal performance.”
The committee submitted its report to the CJN last July. Although the committee’s report was not made public, the CJN expressed delight about the quality of work it did, and promised to work with the content of the report.
Receiving the report, Justice Onnoghen assured that a comprehensive reform to adequately address the rot in the judicial system would soon be unfolded by the Judiciary under his watch. He said it was not going to be business as usual.
The CJN said: “You ought to know what our problems are, because, as they say, the wearer of the shoe knows where it pinches. At least, it is our duty to lay the first foundation for solving our problem; nobody can come from outside to salvage the Nigerian Judiciary.
“The solution must come from within us. We have to do so because if we don’t do so, the whole edifice will fall on our heads and we will have ourselves to blame. “
To demonstrate its commitment to eliminating delay in its operations, the Supreme Court has taken some major steps this year.
First was its decision, on June 9, upholding the provisions of Section 306 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), 2015, and Section 40 of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (Establishment) Act, 2004, which prohibit stay of proceedings in criminal trial.
The CJN, during one of the court’s proceedings, last July, announced the decision of the court to limit appearance to five lawyers per party in any case, particularly political matters.
He explained that the measure was to save the time spent by lawyers in announcing a long appearance list of over 100 counsel per party, and to preserve space for lawyers in other cases to access and sit in the court.
A senior official of the Supreme Court disclosed that the efforts were currently on for the automation of the court’s Registry to ensure that cases were filed and assigned for hearing with ease.
He also said one of the three courtrooms in the Supreme Court complex has been fully automated and would be inaugurated for use this legal year.
The official also spoke about the court’s plan to introduce the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process, for civil appeals, in the new legal year, to ensure that non-contentious appeals are dealt with outside the traditional court process.
He said; “Already, a section of the ground floor of the court building has been equipped for this purpose. About six offices have been created where up to six ADR panels could sit simultaneously to determine cases.
“The plan is to use mostly retired justices as members of the panel. They would be further trained on the procedure to be adopted. We are looking at the possibility of making the ADR option mandatory rather than being optional.
“By this, I mean that it is the court that will be directing parties to submit to ADR when the court finds that issues in such cases are straight forward. By so doing, the regular court will have the time to attend to contentious issues,” he said.
Suggestions on how to address delay
Observers have suggested that while court managers adopt administrative measures to curb delay, efforts should be directed at the Legislature to ensure that the necessary amendments to the Constitution were carried out before the end of the tenure of the current National Assembly.
Hon said the first step to addressing delay in court process was by amending the Constitution to have certain appeals terminate at the Court of Appeal.
He added: “Regional Supreme Courts and Courts of Appeal should be established to take care of disputes based on State, customary and land laws. The Supreme Court is currently overburdened, hence needs this breathing space.
“As for the Court of Appeal, more Divisions of this Court should be created to reduce that Court’s workload. Sections 36 (3) and 234 of the Constitution be also amended, to permit a single Justice of the Supreme Court to sit in Chambers and determine all manners of interlocutory applications or motions.
“Similar constitutional amendments should be introduced in respect of the Court of Appeal. The reason is plain enough; over 80% of appellate delay is caused by interlocutory motions. Put me on record; once this amendment scales through, the issue of delay in dispensing appellate justice will be consigned to history,” Hon said.
Obono-Obla suggested the automation of the court process to allow lawyers to file cases, using ICT. He called for a more transparent process in the appointment of judges, so that the best and committed hands are attracted to the Bench.
He wondered why it takes time and much effort to access certified true copies of court’s decisions. He said where the court process is automated, access to such materials would be easy.
Obono-Obla also stressed the need for attitudinal change on the part of stakeholders in the justice administration system. He said where the judges and lawyers agreed to do away with delay, the system would function better to the benefit of all.
To Chukwueke, stakeholders in the justice delivery sector know what the problems are. He said what was required was the commitment of the stakeholders to address the problems, particularly the delay in the determination of cases at the appellate courts.
