A Paper Presented at the Thanksgiving Mass, Public Lecture and Investiture of National Association of Catholic Lawyers (NACL), Catholic Archdioces of Ibadan on 8th October, 2023.

By Chimezie Victor C. Ihekweazu, SAN

INTRODUCTION/DEFINITION

Justice in its ordinary meaning depicts “Proper administration of Laws”[1] “In jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition of Legal matters or dispute to render every man his due”[2]. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as “just behavior or treatment. The quality of being just. The administration of the Law or authority in maintaining this…”[3]

The question is, how can one achieve Justice under our legal order and to what purpose? What should be the standard to be accepted in justice delivery? How can an effective justice system be realized in our given society and for what benefits? What impact would an effective justice system serve in our given society? These question in truth remain fundamental in our socio-political discuss and in truth only little appear to have changed. What structures and instruments exist in our society to achieve an acceptable system to drive economic development.

An effective justice system is the dream of every developing Nation. In one of my works, I stated[4] that “the base of sustenance of human freedom, free Enterprises, Fundamental Rights, Democracy, Due Process and Justice lie in having an effective and efficient judiciary with potent structures and capacity that deliver excellent services. It is a strong arm of government existing in cohesion with other arms to achieve and secure good governance. A weak judicial system ushers in a failed state where impunity and lawlessness thrive…”

RESOLUTION OF DISPUTE

Under our Constitution,[5] it is undisputed that the judicial resolution of dispute between persons in accordance with the law and judicial principles, remain the primary objective of establishing the Courts. This duty is done in the administration of applicable law to matters between persons within the society. In this regard, direction is provided through different levels of Court system to achieve it subject to the particular dictates of the Law where applicable. The law provides different levels of Courts seized with powers[6] and specific jurisdiction. In precise terms, the scope and exercise of these powers are provided under the written laws of the land and applied accordingly.

THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK

In Nigeria, justice delivery is guided by the Legal and institutional Frameworks as applicable in Civil and Criminal exercise of jurisdiction. Under the Legal Framework, National, State and Local Government Laws are provided in line with appropriate and due procedures with sufficient and needed adjectival laws and Rules of Court to guide the mind of the Court. In addition, Heads of Courts may approve Practice Direction and Professional Rules of Practice in exercise of their Constitutional powers to supplement the existing laws for additional support. In all, the application of these laws and Rules help to attain the ends of justice in dispute resolution. The adequacy of these Laws, remain subject for reformation, consideration and not limited in scope but guided by needs as may be apt. Law they say must be dynamic and suitable to societal needs.[7] Thus what works in a particular society may be difficult to apply in another society, a reason why acceptable cultural factors suitable in relation to the basic principles of justice are normally respected.

The effectiveness of Legal applications to a great extent relate to the operational institutions, innovative measures and structures guiding each process. The institutional framework consists of the judicial and non-judicial structures, Securities structures, policing and correctional facilities in the legal order. The Judicial structure is made up of the Courts in order of its Constitutional hierarchy as well as the quasi-Judicial/Tribunals like Arbitral structures operating with the Legal structures[8] and contractual structures,[9] permissible within the legal order. Clearly the target howsoever directed is to achieve a just determination of disputes, to enable a free and peaceful society. Other support structures like the Police, Economic and financial Crimes Commission and Nigerian Correctional Services to a great extent contribute in criminal jurisdictional matters to aid crime prevention, investigation and prosecution.

In action, it is preferable for these structures in both judicial and non-judicial standing to be manned by competent personnel qualified in absolute terms to discharge the responsibilities of the offices to fruitful satisfaction. In addition, they must be fair and independent in evaluation, conceptualizing and decision-making. In the Court system, we find seat of the Court/Court rooms, as well as the sections which include the Bailiff/Sheriff Section, Cash Office and Accounts, the Process/Record Section, The Archives, Appeal Section, Internal Audit, in addition to the Open Court Registry. These Court Sections are created and operated for the smooth administration of the Court. Competence, in Personnel Management as well as service delivery enhances fruitful administration of justice in a given society. Instances where leakages exist in any section ultimately affects the others and lead to incomplete delivery of result one way or the other.[10] This in effect, affects justice delivery in the system and lead to negative results and bring failures to the system, among other negative impact on the people.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS

In truth, disputes arise in the socio-economic life of persons in any given society as well as other ills that affect life and security among people. The primary purpose of leadership in every society centers on the security and welfare of its citizens as well as the duty to maintain law and order. The fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy[11] provide, inter-alia, that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government and enjoins the state to direct its policy towards ensuring the promotion of a planned and balanced economic development.[12]

Investments and economic activities strive where good structure exists for resolution of disputes that arise in economic activities, among other factors. Thus where potent structure exists for formal and informal resolution of disputes, the tendency is that such environment will allow for more economic activity and development. This situation creates magnetic attraction to sustained economic life among entities and persons within the socio-economic order. In a recent event,[13] a distinguished senior colleague,[14] recounted with nostalgia how the judiciaries faired’ over twenty-five years ago. In his remarks, cases and duration were predictable with adherence to precedent that assured every Practitioner almost a 100% percent certainty of the outcome. This position enjoyed the admiration of colleagues who never doubted its truthfulness. Time was more of the essence on decision whether civil or criminal were concluded within relatively shorter periods unlike what the present day brings. In fact, there were lesser Appeals since every practitioner could advise effectively in line with established principles of law that operated at any given time. In my understanding and assessment of the time, most businesses strived, with stable monetary policies and huge international trade relations and engagements that allowed the admiration of our dear nation. The records are there for comparison.[15] In Comparative terms A Judge from the UK Commercial Court once pointed out at an event^15b that in determination of insolvency matters there is hardly an Appeal as every Officer in the temple of Justice from the Judge to the Administrative staff and Advocates are well informed to do the needful and accept the outcome.

In our Court, cases stay years before decisions are reached. In most cases, at the appellate stages, the Court of Appeal last over three years while at the Supreme Court, cases over 6 or more years save for time bound cases as provided in Law.[16] Unless, where special Laws[17] allow for speedy determination or circumstances allowing for exercise of judicial discretion,[18] which may be allowed in some cases. These states of

affairs cannot allow fruitful and meaningful economic activities that will benefit the society. To a great extent state income for development is affected negatively thus allowing for extensive borrowing which in turn impoverish the people and the state. Painfully, this has been the reality and we continue to suffer for it. My humble advice is not to allow this state of affairs to continue. Efforts should be made to ensure a change for the better.

Effective dispute resolutions allows for stability in the socio-political order and attracts investment as well as enhance rich economic activity. Disputes arise in our everyday activity and some wrongful acts may equally result in human relations as well as with the state. Fruitful and timely resolution of disputes, redress and or penalty/punishment as applicable reassures the people. This has contributed to the development in other countries like United States, South Africa and European States.

The question one may ask is how have we been affected in this Country? Recently, I attended some events where references were made about the protracted nature of some Arbitration and Insolvency matters that resulted to extensive and endless litigation of an average of seven (7) to twelve years. In my years of experience in Legal Practice, I have also had a fair share of this situation. Recently, I have been engaged in an Insolvency matter that has resulted in litigations of over six (6) years in a simple commercial matter. Surprisingly, the issues leading to most of the disputes were basically contractual and involving certain agreed terms and positions. This remains unfortunate. In business, time is of the essence, the micro and macro-economic realities point to the truth that values in economical benefit can no longer be the same. Events in the Financial and monetary sector are ready examples which cannot be ignored. The fear remains how long will the unfortunate situation continue and when will we see the light in the tunnel. The answers remain in our ability to build a viable judicial system.

In Civil and Criminal matters the applicable laws[19] and effective structures in addressing matters, lie in judicial resolution structures[20] as well as contractual resolution structures aimed to achieve justice. The question is to what extent can one say our Nation has been fruitful in justice delivery? What is the average life span of a case in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Even in other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like Arbitration, what reality exist in Nigeria today regarding recognition and enforcement of awards.  Clearly matters that can be concluded within two or three years may stand as exceptions to what stands as reality. This situation cannot encourage economic activity. It will also not allow meaningful co-existence of citizens.

The second issue relates to the structures that aid dispensation of justice. Competence, Facilities, Personnel and other condition of service, contribute tremendously to efficiency in the system. The manner and standard of each Personnel starting from the Court, the Registrars, Filing Room Staff, Cash Office etc go to a great extent to show what the result will be. In addition, the conditions of the workspace as well as the reward system encourage effective service, which in turn yield to development.    

CHALLENGES AND PROPOSAL FOR REFORM

Our judicial system today continues to face huge challenges on different fronts. The standard of appointment of judges must be reviewed to bring it to almost the same standard with that of the award of Senior Advocates of Nigeria. This will to a great extent guarantee satisfactory experience and background in dealing with legal matters as well as case management. In some jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, Advocates aspire to the Bench from the inner Bar. Though this may appear unusual but certainly it will guarantee passion, interest and good/service in the legal regime. There is nothing wrong with having a good percentage of our judges who have experienced active practice. In Nigeria, most of the courts are operating with limited facilities to aid and support their service delivery. Some of the conditions and facilities remain deplorable in most cases, while the rules of courts and practice directions advance in technology, the facilities required to make their rules effective are either unavailable or inadequate. This remains a major set-back and affects the justice delivery.

The next issue remains the limited capacity in human capital development to operate the system. Our Honorable Justices deserve extensive and rich trainings regularly to meet up with the times and the needs of justice in our societies. The challenge also besets other support staff who need these improvements in the call to service in the justice sector. Efforts should be made to achieve more gains in this regard.

Lack of efficient Research Assistants is a major challenge in our justice delivery system at different court levels. Our judicial Officers are human with the respective obligation ranging from potential, family, parental, among others and most work to lead and not work to die. The same thing applies to other personnel that work within the medical system to obtain the best from the system, the support structure must allow for efficient Research Assistance in human personnel as well as adequate Libraries among other provisions that will compliment their effort to produce timely and fruitful results.

A fertile environment for economic growth must be rich in terms of its legal and institutional framework for justice delivery. This will foster effective dispute resolution mechanisms and framework that will be beneficial for the society. This must be enhanced from the lowest Courts to the highest court in the sense of its jurisdictional limits of causes in respect of each original and appellate Jurisdictions.

The process of streamlining matters in its required attention must be defined through law reforms as well as. speedy. Clearly, certain matters require urgent attention for their extraordinary economic values. These will include matters toughing or relating to arbitration, Insolvency and Business Rescue, Tenancy matters, Company operation and survival as well as Employment, Labour and  Education among others. These matters touch on human survival, state revenue and

economic stability. In fact it may even affect state survival in the sense that economic adversity can lead to the collapse of the State. Settlement of dispute  in these areas must be achieved within limited period as time must be recognized as being of the essence. This is the reality and must be taken seriously.

Training and re-training of judicial officers and other administrative personnel of the courts must be consistent, sustained, structured and result oriented. These trainings must address key areas of concern. Constant structures must be put in place to evaluate these trainings to record and identify results and other benefits for graduated sustenance.

Mandatory health checks must equally be encouraged for our judicial officer as well as their administrative staff. This must not be ignored. It will help identify weak capacities as well as manageable standards in capacities so that realistic assistance, support needed and comfort can be provided. These issues relating to health must be carefully managed so that they can be assured that their welfare is guaranteed for them to attend to their other obligations and callings without any negative result for the state.

Finally on this point, I must mention that Judicial advocacy appears not to be given the required attention. Suitable information flow may not be penetrating wide enough in the medium that will reach the different parts of our society as well as authorities. Genuine and informed efforts should be made to achieve this as well as sustain the efforts and improvements.

CONCLUSION

Nigeria is a developing state and must be conscious of its socio-economic and political order. Statistics in its justice delivery system across all the levels of the court cannot be said to be improving for the better. A lot of businesses are failing and new ones appear not to be encouraged. The business space has continued to shrink with little attention being directed to the reasons for the fallings and means of rescue or survival.

There is need to keep watch at all times and address urgent needs in terms of the concerns or inadequacies in the legal framework at the state and national levels as well as the institutional structures within the justice delivery system. We must in comparative term work at what has worked elsewhere and pick the fruits as necessary in apt balances with our environment as to what will work. This practice must be continuous and consistent. To this end we will improve the judicial structures and by direct extension bring economic development to our nation and its people.

I must underscore the point that our social economic wellbeing to a great extent depends on the potency of the judiciary and its effectiveness. It concerns all of us no matter how we live and therefore requires constant review, examination as well as necessary reform to yield benefits to the entire citizenry of our nation.

Thank you.

CHIMEZIE VICTOR C. IHEKWEAZU LLM, FBR, FCArb. SAN
CHIKWEM CHAMBERS (C.V.C. IHEKWEAZU & CO)
27C KOLAWOLE CRESCENT, OFF BUNMI OLOWUDE STREET, LEKKI PHASE I, LAGOS, LAGOS STATE
TEL: 08033018974, 08057209005
Email: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

---

[1] Black’s Law Dictionary 5^th Ed. by Henry Campbell Black, M.A. West Publishing Co. 1979 Page 776

[2] Black’s Law Dictionary 5^th Ed. by Henry Campbell Black, M.A. West Publishing Co. 1979 Page 776

[3] Page 772 – Concise Oxford English Dictionary Eleventh Edition by Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson – Oxford University Press – 2004 P. 772

[4] “Reinforcing the Nigerian Judiciary and its Structures” Unpublished Article (2022)

[5] Section 6(6)b of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria

[6] Section 6(6) a Ibid

[7] See … Practice Directions, Regulation and Rules that apply in our Courts

[8] Other Tribunals and Resolution panels within establishments recognized under the Legal Order

[9] Arbitral Tribunals permitted by Law

[10] See the Paper – “Ethical Considerations in Operation of Modern Court Registry” by Chimezie Victor C. Ihekweazu 2013

[11] See Chapter II, Section 14(2)b of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)

[12] Section 16(2)(a) ibid

[13] AGM of National Association of Catholic Lawyers Lagos Archdiocese

[14] Chief (Dr.) Anthony I Idigbe (SAN)

[15] It is important to note the level of economic activities in Nigeria across region in the 80s and 90s as compared with later years. The exchange rate in the Naira to the dollar and other National currency also show indication of these scenarios

[16] Election matters               

[17] Assets Management Corporation Matters and  EFCC matters, etc

[18] The Courts retain powers to grant accelerated hearing of cases

[19]

[20]

By R.A.C.E Achara

Let’s hope the court will grant this discretionary application.

The motion is very persuasive, even compelling in its saliency and brevity. But I worry.

I worry not about the rightness of what has been presented but on doubtful prior decisions, which offer avoidable technical objections, which the applicant’s could have sidestepped without opening the opportunity for a possibly adverse ruling on them, one way or the other.

For example, I should have expected the applicants to preempt the objection that is to the effect that a court should reject evidence by way of a supporting affidavit if such an affidavit has been made by a legal practitioner representing any of the parties.

This objection is double edged.

If you say the material is such that only counsel for the applicant can understand and make it on his behalf, then, there’s judicial precedent to the effect that acting, qua counsel, the deponent is consequently supposed to have affixed his NBA stamp and seal otherwise his signature is to be regarded as not there. The supporting affidavit in this application is sans such a stamp and seal.

Without a valid signature, the affidavit is invalid. With the affidavit also vanishes all the exhibited documents; as well, consequently, of all parts of the thus naked motion paper and accompanying written address.

But if the deponent need be no counsel, there are yet, regrettably, recent SC authorities (in which counsel had unfortunately not drawn the attention of Their Lordships to their prior, not overruled, and thus binding 1986 full court decision to the contrary) in which there had been dicta to suggest that a supporting affidavit should be nullified, as unusable, if made by a legal practitioner or clerk in the law firm of such counsel!

There are conflicting CA decisions on the point.

The latest one is consistent with the 1986(87?) controlling SC decision, per Oputa, JSC leading, in Elabanjo v. Tijani.

But although, in my respectful submission, preferable, I’m compelled nevertheless to point out that it is per incuriam for ignoring the contrary earlier CA decision that nullifies such an affidavit.

The only saving grace is that that earlier CA decision is itself per incuriam a much earlier CA decision and inconsistent with the indisputably controlling SC decision in Elabanjo.

But why expose the application to this avoidable possible loophole?

To sidestep this expectable but unwarranted controversy, why not expressly indicate that the deponent is currently not acting, qua counsel, as seems probably the case from a cursory look at the list of the counsel expressly indicated as acting in that capacity (of applicants’ counsel) on the face of the motion paper and on the written address?

Why didn’t they get the applicant or the Chairman or Secretary of the 2nd applicant PDP, or, best of all, any administrative staff of the applicants that was present physically or virtually at the US court-ordered deposition and certification, to swear to these facts by signing the affidavit before the Commissioner for Oaths at the Supreme Court?

What could they possibly have lost by sidestepping this ‘overcomeable’ but potential landmine?

Again, but this is minor, the Written Address, which is filed along with the motion paper, omits addresses for service of the process on any of the three respondents.

A Supreme Court (SC) decision of 25/2/2021(22?) – I think Jarigbe and Ukpo or parties fighting over a Senate seat in Cross River State – decided that absence of an address for service is fatal; as being indicative of an intention, in a non ex parte motion, to proceed without notifying one’s opponents of the pending matter.

However, it would be crass ‘technicism’ (not just ‘technicality’) if under the present facts, the Hon. Court would feel persuaded to apply that decision to the present appeal.

This is because the missing addresses for service were fully included at the appropriate places on the motion paper to which the Written Address has been added as an inextricable part.

My other worry is in relation to the delivery machinery for the substantive evidence, which the appellants propose to inject as fresh or additional evidence to the appeal.

No doubt, the rules permit what they have done by way of prayers asking (without the intermediation of any direct witness or witnesses) for production, and when produced, receipt by the court of the, as it were, hearsay evidence of Westberg’s deposition and its certified true copy (by probably a court recorder or court clerk of a foreign court not within the Evidence Act’s judicially recognized ‘Commonwealth’).

The District Court of the State of Illinois and indeed even the entire United States of America are not part of the Commonwealth of States.

This has been so since at least the successful war of independence and thus before the creation of the Commonwealth of States which are or formerly had been under the suzerainty of the United Kingdom.

In the event, why not err on the side of excess by introducing the CTC and or original deposition through a person who was present at the deposition, witnessed its certification, and then got all these notarized at the Nigerian embassy in the non-Commonwealth country called the United States of America?

Anyway, I tend to worry too much and thus I attempt to fill gaps that might never even be noticed or canvassed.

Prof. R. A. C. E. Achara, Ph.D. (Nig.);
Doctoral Prizeman, University of Nigeria Postgraduate Prize for Law;
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Fellow of the Five College African Scholars Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst;
Millennial Chairman, NBA Enugu Branch 2000-2002;
Principal,
Prof. RACE Achara Law Chambers,
New Haven, Enugu.
[[email protected]]
01:07, Sunday,
8 October 2023.

By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu

In July 2023, the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) presided over a meeting of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to appoint his own son a judge of the Federal High Court. On 4 October, as his father presided over the swearing in of his own son, it fell to the Old Students Association of Ikolaba Grammar School, which the new judge attended for his secondary education, to defend his appointment with the cringe-inducing statement that “contrary to claims in some quarters, Ariwoola Jr.’s appointment as a judge was not on the influence of his father, who is the CJN.” They lacked the standing to say this, of course, because they could not possibly know how he was appointed.

In June 2023, the NJC convened to approve the elevation of the President of the Court of Appeal’s son-in-law. This individual has previously been appointed as a judge of the National Industrial Court of Nigerian (NICN) a mere six years earlier in 2017.

In January 2021, the Governor of Plateau State swore in the wife of this same son-in-law, herself the daughter of the same President of the Court of Appeal, as a judge of the High Court of Plateau State.

The following year, the wife of the Judge President of the NICN was similarly appointed a judge of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory. Her brother, like her husband, was also a member of the NJC.

Meanwhile, at the meeting where it approved the son of the CJN for a judgeship, the NJC also approved for appointment to the Federal High Court a nephew of the Chief Judge of Ogun State.

What is good for the judges is also good for the politicians. So, as the country headed into the 2019 elections, the then ruling party handed the ticket to represent Bauchi North in the Senate to the husband of the President Court of Appeal, who plays the primary role in election dispute resolution. On his exit from the Senate four years later, this Senator confessed that instead of using the bedroom to enjoy geriatric connubium, he had converted it into a venue where he habitually “encroached” on his wife’s judicial independence for the benefit of his political co-travellers.

Meanwhile, following the retirement of that President of the Court of Appeal, her husband became surplus to requirements and the party promptly re-allocated the ticket in 2023 for his senatorial seat instead to one of the sons of the then CJN.

Not to be outdone, another major political party handed a ticket to the House of Representatives to another son of the same CJN.

In 2022, the Governor of Bayelsa State appointed his wife as a judge of the state High Court. He is just one of many senior politicians around Nigeria who keep their own judges in their bedrooms.

These examples are just a tip of an iceberg of what has become a pattern of diversion and capture of high judicial office in Nigeria by a mutually sustaining incest of political and judicial insiders, mostly connected through bloodlines, personal favours, or genital relations. More than 63 years after Independence, this group have conspired to erode judicial independence in Nigeria.

Law professor, Itsejuwa Sagay, the Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) who also chaired the Presidential Advisory Committee against Corruption (PACAC) in the administration of Muhammadu Buhari, was on firm grounds when he declaimed over three years ago that “sons and daughters of retired and serving judges and justices are being nominated for appointment into sensitive judicial positions at the expense of more qualified candidates without privileged support and backing.”

One response to this trend is the refrain that propinquity or relationship to a judicial or political insider should not bar qualified persons from judicial office. Yomi Aliyu, SAN, even goes further to claim that “the judiciary had become a family affair throughout the world, especially common law nations.” He could not produce any evidence to back up this unimaginative invention, which is not surprising because there is none.

Surely, if judicial temperament and skill were to be hereditary or sexually transmitted as Mr. Aliyu suggests, this tendency in Nigeria should have had some antiquity. But, among Nigeria’s first eight indigenous CJNs until after Mohammed Uwais who retired in June 2006, only the first, Adetokunbo Ademola, could count a child of his (Philip Adenekan Ademola) as a judge. Many among their successors since then used their office at the head of the NJC to prefer their own children to high judicial office with no care or concern for conflicts of interest. Indeed, a former CJN preferred two of his own children to the high court bench and another two into positions in the registry of different courts in the country.

The idea that these scions of the well-placed are more qualified for judicial office than others does not bear scrutiny. To begin with, the only constitutional requirement for judicial appointment in Nigeria is a minimum number of years of enrolment as a lawyer in Nigeria. There are no prescribed skill, character, or integrity thresholds.

The judicial managers of the appointment process skew it deliberately to ensure pre-determined outcomes. This will not be the case if their children, spouses and mistresses (with whom they choose to fill many judicial vacancies) were that competitive. In 2020, for instance, the NJC advertised 15 vacancies for the FCT High Court but nominated 34 persons for appointment, with all of the non-advertised nominations going to the children or relatives of judicial insiders. It seemed clear that they were deliberately parsimonious with disclosure of all the vacancies in order to be able to share those in an exclusive bazaar for judicial insiders.

This is not the only problem. Femi Falana, SAN, complained last year that “two years ago, a candidate who scored zero in the NJC interview was made a judge.” The qualification of that candidate was their relationship to a judicial insider. This is not an exception. A nephew of another senior judicial figure from southern Nigeria who similarly failed the written test was also jumped above other more qualified candidates in a recent round of judicial appointments.

The alacrity with which parents and paramours in high judicial or political office in Nigeria suddenly discover these days that the hidden genius of their scions or sleep mates deserve elevation to the highest levels of judicial office tasks every calculus of probability beyond the realm of plausibility. The only explanation for this pattern is that judicial office is hawked as a transactional token or filial favour, or for genital propinquity. In Nigeria, enabled by politicians in whose favour these offices are procured as inoculation against electoral misadventure, this pattern of abuse of judicial office prospers without credible challenge.

Most importantly, this practice of insider dealing in judicial appointments violates the United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary as well as Judicial Code of Conduct established by the NJC itself. As a rule under the Basic Principles, “any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives.” That is what happens when the best qualification of a nominee for judicial office is who they are related to or whom they sleep with.

Moreover, Rule 8.3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct contains this explicit prohibition: “a Judge who takes advantage of the judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses power.” It is impossible to not see that a CJN who sits as chair of the NJC to prefer his own child to judicial office violates this stipulation.

Yet this has become the rule not the exception. The result is that Nigeria’s judiciary now suffers a terminal credibility deficit that endangers civilized dispute resolution to the point of making vigilantism highly profitable. The Council of Foreign Relations validates this causality between “public mistrust of the police and the judicial system” on the one hand and what it calls Nigeria’s “epidemic of lawlessness” on the other.

There is no magic bullet out of this mess. But it is essential to return credibility to judicial appointments. That must begin with un-bundling the multiplicity of roles in the office of the CJN and making judicial appointments more transparent and less dependent on his or her whim.

A lawyer & a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at [email protected]