By The Guardian Editorial Board
The hornet’s nest stirred recently by retired Supreme Court Justice Dattijo Muhammad is yet another wake-up call on the Federal Government and the judiciary as an institution to address lingering perception of irregularities and lack of steadfastness surrounding the judicial system. The point is that until efforts are made to gradually address some of the perceptions, the judiciary will continue to attract a negative image among many Nigerians. While many of the public perceptions are lacking in substance and may have been fuelled more by political considerations, some others appear genuine and require some interventions to allay the apprehension highlighted by the retired justice.
Mr. Muhammad who recently retired from the apex court reviewed some of the negative public perceptions about the judiciary, and spoke against what he considered to be wrong practices in the institution. For instance, he spoke against the over-concentration of powers in the office of the Chief Justice of Nigeria, a fact that he believed is open to gross abuse. He also lamented the seeming opaqueness in the appointment of judges, particularly perception that judges were sponsoring their family relatives to take appointments in a way that invariably undermines meritocracy. And he also lamented the depletion of judges in the appellate courts, particularly the Supreme Court, as this portends great harm to justice dispensation.
Muhammad decried conflicting and controversial decisions emanating from the courts which engendered negative public perception of the judiciary. Lamenting the depleting number of justices at the Supreme Court, Muhammad, further disclosed the lack of federal character in the present composition of the court. Similarly, he criticised the flawed mode of appointing judicial officers, the poor remuneration package of judicial officers, and the alleged misappropriation of judiciary funds by the heads of the courts. It would seem that the once highly extolled citadel of justice is gradually falling from grace to grass.
Whilst the issues raised by the law lord may not be entirely novel; however, they are deserving of meticulous consideration for proper judicial reforms. Every citizen is a potential victim of a perverse judiciary. According to Justice Samson Uwaifo (rtd), “A corrupt judge is more harmful to society than a man who runs amok with a dagger in a crowded street. He can be restrained physically. But a corrupt judge deliberately destroys the moral foundation of society and causes incalculable distress to individuals through abusing his office, while still being referred to as ‘honourable’. It is difficult to bring him to account under our system.”
It is also important to debunk the notion that the bench has become the exclusive preserve of the high and mighty as meritocracy has been allegedly relegated to the background while mediocrity takes centre stage in recruitment exercise. Although the tradition of seniority on the Bench is strong for the purpose of elevation, competence must be given its pride of place. The practice of nominating only serving judicial officers as judges should give way to appointment of credible and suitable lawyers to the bench, with appropriate advice from the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA). Notably, many judges are presently being nominated to fill vacancies in the apex court; but the situation should not have been allowed to degenerate to the court having only 10 members as presently constituted. How can they adequately administer justice in a federation of more than 200 million people, many of whom are highly litigious?
The enormity of the powers of the CJN as the chairman of the National Judicial Council, Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), National Judicial Institute (NJI) and the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC) is acknowledged. However, there is no authority under the sun that has absolute powers. In fact, the establishing laws of the named Commissions did not clothe the CJN with the sole decision-making right. Paragraph 21 Part One of the Third Schedule to the Constitution empowers the NJC as a body (and not the CJN) to make recommendations to the President and Governors on judicial appointments. Nevertheless, the concern of Justice Muhammad that such powers are prone to abuse should not be treated with levity.
It is, however, important not to create a system that will produce different heads for the commissions in a way to promote unhealthy rivalry and superiority conflict and power play among the various heads. Also, the office of the CJN should not be trivialised, as can happen where the heads of the commissions consider themselves equal to the CJN.
The issue of conflicting judgments being dispensed by the courts is disturbing. Nigeria’s adjudicating system is precedent-based – courts are mandatorily bound to follow the decisions of superior courts that are higher than them in the judicial hierarchy. However, there have been derogations from this age-long principle of law lately. Where such practice or perception involves the Supreme Court, it sends wrong signals of possible compromise against their Lordships.
It is settled law that the membership of a political party is a domestic affair of the party concerned. Following this principle, the Presidential Election Petition Court dismissed the petition of the All Progressives Party (APC) challenging Mr. Peter Obi’s membership of the Labour Party. However, the Kano State Governor Election Tribunal sacked the elected governor, Abba Yusuf, on the ground that he was not a member of the New Nigeria Peoples Party when he contested the election. Surprisingly, the Court of Appeal recently upheld this decision.
Instructively, the mandatory duty to follow judicial precedent is in the public interest. It ensures that the judicial application of law to facts is orderly and consistent and thereby makes the law more certain, predictable, and responsive to the changed circumstances and expectations of society. Sadly, that certainty is fading in Nigerian law.
Nigeria is ranked 120th of 142 countries in terms of adherence to the rule of law, according to the latest global Rule of Law Index released by the World Justice Project (WJP). If as the defender of the rule of law, the judiciary cannot maintain consistency in justice delivery, then the nation is in trouble. The problems associated with the judiciary are well-identified and the requisite remedies are not rocket science. The authorities, particularly the CJN should confront the sole challenge, which is absence of willpower to do the right thing.
For the sake of its own dignity, the Nigerian judiciary owes the society the duty to administer the law in a manner that ensures that there remains validity in the claim that the judiciary is the last line of defence and hope for the oppressed.
