- Says safeguards in judicial appointments for improper motive, is increasingly being compromised
By Lillian Okenwa
When 25 High Court judges were sworn-in as Justices of the Court of Appeal on 10th December, 1998 they were dubbed— The Russians (Rushians)— after the the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) which was the largest country that ever existed. Russia was its capital. That appointment (25 judges) in one fell swoop was unprecedented. Hon. Justice Musa Dattijo Muhammad, JSC (Rtd.) one of the nine who made it to the Supreme Court was the last of the 25 to retire and when he exited on Friday, 27 October, it was with a bang and some characteristics akin to native Russians — strength and resilience.
Notwithstanding whose ox is gored, Dattijo, JSC in a bare it all valedictory speech, shook the very foundations of Nigeria’s Supreme Court.
Below are some of his assertions.
Funding and Independence of the Judiciary
Allusions have been made innumerable times about poor funding and how the judiciary has been emasculated by inadequate funding. My lord, the late Hon. Justice Mustapha Akanbi CFR, a former President of the Court of Appeal in a publication titled “The Main Obstacles of justice According to Law” said:
“[A] good judgment flows from a mind that is not bogged by the thought of-where do I get my next meal? Or where do I get the money to pay my son’s school fees? Poor conditions of service, disturb the mind. It is an obstacle to clear and positive thinking…”(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
Beyond the issue of the salaries of Justices remaining static with no graduation for over 15 years now, it is instructive to enquire what the judiciary also does with its allocations. Who is responsible for the expenditure? An unrelenting searchlight needs to be beamed to unravel how the sums are expended.
In 2015 when President Muhammadu Buhari became the president, the budgetary allocation to the judiciary was ₦70 billion. In the 2018 Appropriation Bill submitted to the National Assembly, the President allocated ₦100 billion to the judiciary.
The legislature increased it to ₦110 billion; ₦10 billion above the ₦100 billion appropriated for the 2017 fiscal year. At the end of President Buhari’s tenure in May 2023, judiciary’s allocation had increased to ₦130 billion. That is an increase from ₦70 to ₦130 billion in 8 years. The present government has allocated an additional sum of 35 billion naira to the judiciary for the current financial year making the amount of money accessible by the judiciary to 165 billion naira. More than 85 percent of the amount appropriated by the gth Assembly has so far been released to the judiciary. It is envisaged that the additional 35 billion naira will equally be released by the present government.
Notwithstanding the phenomenal increases in the sums appropriated and released to the judiciary, Justices and officers’ welfare and the quality of service the judiciary render have continued to decline.
It may interest one to know that the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court earns more than the Justices. While she earns ₦1.2m per month, justices take home ₦751,000 in a month. The CJN on his part takes home ₦400,000 plus. The salary of a Justice, curiously, drops rather than increases when he gets the added responsibility of being a CJN.
That the unjust and embarrassing salary difference between the justices and the Chief Registrar still abides, remains intriguing to say the least. Valedictory session, after valedictory session, lapses and challenges that should be nipped are restated to no avail. Why the silence and seeming contentment?
The process of the appointment of Judges and quality of judgments of courts.
A couple of years ago, appointment to the bench was strictly on merit. Sound knowledge of the law, integrity, honour, and hard work distinguished those who were elevated. Lobbying was unheard of. I never lobbied, not at any stage of my career, to secure any appointment or elevation. As much as possible the most qualified men and women were appointed. That can no longer be sad about appointments to the bench.
The judiciary must be uniquely above board. Appointments should not be polluted by political, selfish, and sectional interests. The place of merit, it must be urged, cannot be over-emphasized. Public perceptions of the judiciary have over the years become witheringly scornful and monstrously critical. It has been in the public space that court officials and judges are easily bribed by litigants to obviate delays and or obtain favourable judgments.
His lordship Adefope-Okojie JCA, at the point of exiting, had enthused, inter-alia, thus:-
“Pleas are expressed everyday by the generality of the public begging the judiciary to be just to be truthful, and to save the country from collapse. My question is whether the judiciary needs to be begged or cajoled? What is it that qualifies any person to bear that exalted name ‘Honourable Justice? Is it not for him to administer justice without fear or favour?… Unfortunately, It has been severely vilified, with the Apex Court so denigrated and called by a social commentator as a voter gaggle of useless, purchasable judicial bandits. How did the judiciary get to this level? Why is the whole country on edge for fear of what the public regardsasunpredictablejudicial pronouncements? There must be a rethink and a hard reset. If the people we have sworn to defend have lost confidence, there is a problem that must be addressed.”(Underlining supplied for emphasis).
Recently, fresh allegations have been made that children and other relatives of serving and retired judges and justices are being appointed into judicial offices at the expense of more qualified candidates lacking in such privilege and backing. It is asserted that the process of appointment to judicial positions are deliberately conducted to give undue advantage to the “children, spouses, and mistresses” of serving and retired judges and managers of judicial offices.
At the Court of Appeal, it is also asserted, presiding Justices are now being appointed out of turn. And there is the further issue of the unpredictable nature of recent decisions of the courts as well. A number of respected senior members of the bar inter alia, citing the Ahmed Lawan, the former President of the Senate and the Imo Governorship appeals, claim that decisions of even the apex court have become unpredictable. It is difficult to understand how and where, by these decisions, the judicial pendulum swings. It was not so before, they contend.
In some quarters the view is strongly held that filth and intrigues characterize the institution these days! Judges are said to be comfortable in companies they never would have kept in the past. It is being insinuated that some judicial officers even campaign for the politicians. It cannot be more damnifying!
President Muhammadu Buhari in 2016 ordered the forceful entry into the houses and the arrest of justices some of whom were serving at the apex court. Not done, in 2019 the government accosted, arrested and arraigned the incumbent Chief Justice before the Code of Conduct Tribunal for alleged underhand conduct.With his retirement apparently negotiated, he was eventually left off the hook.
In 2022 a letter signed by all the other justices of the Supreme Court, including the current Chief Justice, the aggrieved protested against the shabby treatment meted to them by the head of court and the Chief Registrar. At the centre of the friction was their welfare and the cavalier attitude of the Chief Registrar thereto. In the event, his lordship Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad disengaged ostensibly on grounds of ill-health.
Now, it must be said, Chief Femi Falana is right that the safeguard in our appointment procedures against judicial appointments for improper motive, is increasingly being compromised. Certainly, by Rule 8.3 of the Judicial Code of Conduct, “any judge who takes advantage of his judicial office for personal gain or for gain by his or her relative or relation abuses the power vested in him!!!
My lords, distinguished invitees, ladies and gentlemen, it is obvious that the judiciary I am exiting from is far from the one l voluntarily joined and desired to serve and be identified with. The institution has become something else.
What to do?
Allow me at this point in time to recall that the 1999 Constitution as amended allows each and every one of us the freedom of choosing his religion, the company he keeps and what to say. I am sure we all know where these rights abate and where the rights the very same Constitution grants others take off.
I am a Muslim for whose conduct the Holy Quran in Chapter 4 (Nisa) Verse 135 provides:-
“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even though it be against yourselves or your parents or your kin, be he rich or poor, Allah is a Better Protector to both (than you). So follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest you may avoid justice, and if you distort your evidence or refuse to give it, verily Allah is ever well a Acqunted with what you do.”
Chapter 9 (Tauba) verse 71 further requires that believers, both men and women, enjoin what is just and forbid what is evil.
In the A-Z of Qoutes I got stuck to this:-
“This is how a society goes down the drain really quickly first overlook evil,then it permits evil, then it legalizes evil, then it promotes evil, then it celebrates it and then persecutes those that still call it evil.”
Lastly, Adam Grant’s words, in moments like this, are also instructively apposite:-
“When you follow a concept, consider what
would lead you to withdraw your support. If
the answer is nothing, your integrity is in
jeopardy. Your highest loyalty belongs to
principles not concepts. No concept deserves
unconditional love. Commitment is earned
through character.”
My contribution towards reforming the judiciary is founded on the foregoing precepts.
Intrinsic in what I have said today are indices to dampen, nay eradicate, the lapses in the judiciary. The duty to revive the institution remains a collective one. We must persist. It suffices to have, for the purpose of this event, a respite at this point though…
