Removal of ex- CJN, financial autonomy, virtual court sittings define judiciary’s performance
By Joseph Onyekwere
Nigerian judiciary has always been the arm of government that citizens usually look up to, in times of conflict as it is all over the world. This is even more pronounced in developing countries where political conflicts that usually result in judicial adjudication is a norm. Whether the judiciary has lived up to expectation within the last one year of president Muhammadu Buhari’s second term is for citizens to determine, but what is clear is that the courts could fare better notwithstanding the circumstances. This is in consideration of the level of criticisms that the apex court has received in the last one year, following its decisions on political cases. Each of the decisions have created more conflicts and ended up triggering the desire to further appeal by aggrieved disputants, had there been such opportunity. The flurry of criticisms against the judgments of the apex court in recent times is alarming. This, some stakeholders attributed to what they described as “executive assault” on the judiciary in 2019, although the buildup started since October 2016, when judicial officers’ homes were raided by state security agents.
The sector and its stakeholders, including concerned citizens were jolted when the president through an exparte order of a quasi judicial body ( Code of Conduct Tribunal) dated January 23, 2019 removed the former Chief Justice of Nigeria ( CJN), Justice Walter Onnoghen. That was the first time such would happen in Nigeria since 1975 when the country was under the military rule. The constitutionality of that action is still a subject of debate among lawyers and many believe the judiciary is yet to recover from such “executive assault” on the sector since the commencement of democratic government in 1999.
Notwithstanding all the odds, there is cheery news. The penultimate week, president Buhari granted financial autonomy to the judiciary by signing an executive order No. 10 to enforce the 4th alteration of the constitution. This is for the implementation of financial autonomy of state legislature and state judiciary. A presidential implementation committee was constituted to fashion out strategies and modalities for the implementation of financial autonomy for the state legislature and judiciary in compliance with section 121( 3) of the 1999 constitution, taking into consideration all other applicable laws, instruments, conventions and regulations, which provides for financial autonomy at the state tier of government.
The order provides that “the Accountant- General of the Federation shall by this order and such any other orders, regulations or guidelines as may be issued by the Attorney- General of the Federation and Minister of
Justice, authorise the deduction from source in the course of Federation Accounts Allocation from the money allocated to any State of the Federation that fails to release allocation meant for the State Legislature and State Judiciary in line with the financial autonomy guaranteed by Section 121( 3) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 ( as amended)”. Based on the Executive Order, at the commencement of the Order, all States of the Federation shall include the allocations of the two arms of government in their Appropriation Laws. Article 6 ( 1) provides that “notwithstanding the provisions of this Executive Order, in the first three years of its implementation, there shall be special extraordinary capital allocations for the Judiciary to undertake capital development of State Judiciary Complexes, High Court Complexes, Sharia Court of Appeal, Customary Court of Appeal and Court Complexes of other Courts befitting the status of a Courts.”
Human rights lawyer, Ebun- Olu Adegboruwa ( SAN), who commended the president for the action said it was not enough to grant financial autonomy to the judiciary, but also to ensure compliance with the rule of law through full and complete obedience to all orders and decisions of the courts. His words: “I urge the president to grant total autonomy to the judiciary by signing another executive order to all parastatals, agencies and departments of government to implement section 287 of the 1999 constitution by complying with all orders, judgments and decisions of the courts.”
Examining the sector within the last one year, Professor of law, Edoba Omoregie said the judiciary performed to the best of its abilities in the last one year, adding that whether it meet with the expectations of Nigerians is another matter. “In my view, there is so much more to desire about our judicial system. To that extent, the performance of the judiciary cannot be any better than the nature of the judicial system we currently operate. “For a number of reasons, I believe the judiciary can perform far better to meet the people’s yearnings for justice and its quick dispensation: First, the judiciary is working under a system of centralisation. The National Judicial Council ( NJC) is the constitutionally created body which has overriding powers in the management, administration and finance of the judiciary in Nigeria, especially the superior courts,” he said.
Omorogie described it as an undesirable situation. According to him, the effect of its existence is that every aspect of our justice system takes its bearings from the direction of the NJC, from appointment to disciplinary process. This, he said is wrong, because it weakens the ability of the judiciary to function efficiently and effectively in a federation. “State courts should be and must be independent of federal ( or federation) courts in their management, administration and finance. This means that the states should determine what number of judges or judicial personnel they require to handle their justice system. I say this because currently the process of judicial appointments at the superior court level is dictated by the NJC using parameters, which include quota, etc.
“This is unhelpful and actually stunts the growth of the state judiciary, because that level can only now grow depending on factors outside the control of the states. So, if Lagos State, force instance, wants more judges to be appointed to tackle its enormous caseloads, it must await the decision of NJC with the issues of quota, finance etc. considered. The result is that many states are today short of judges to dispense justice,” he said, adding that those are responsible for delays in court proceedings, with consequences for confidence in the justice delivery system.
Apart from suggesting that judicial appointments should be based on merit and proven ability, the professor of law said the judiciary must receive adequate funding to quickly update its capabilities of deploying technology such as virtual court sittings, to meet with best practices elsewhere. He pointed out that last year has seen increased doubts about the independence of the judiciary. “This may be merely perceived, but the reality appears to be that many Nigerians have little faith in the ability of judges at all levels, sadly, to be insulated from political pressures, or to insulate themselves from such pressures for whatever reasons.
“During the last year, we witnessed a number of judicial outcomes which defy the popular perception of justice. Lawyers are familiar with the notion that except the objective observer is able to walk away agreeing that justice has been done in a case; justice has actually not been done. The frequency of this ill- impression of judicial outcomes appears to have continued in the last one year. There are many instances of this, possibly the Imo and Bayelsa election petition decisions and probably even the recent Orji Uzor Kalu criminal proceeding are ready examples. In other words, there’s need for consistency in judicial outcomes in such a way that meets with minimum expectations and standards of justice. We didn’t see much of this in the last one year,” he declared.
Lagos lawyer and human rights activist, Mr. Joe
Nwokedi described the performance of the judiciary in the last one year as an issue of mixed feelings. At certain point, he started, we appreciated the discharge of the judicial obligations of our judges and justices and at some other point, we become so confused as to the reasons for the decisions and judgments they give in respect of cases before them. “Notably, the judgment on Hope Uzodimma V Emeka Ihedioha is a judgment that will take years to reconcile or be in agreement with in many years to come at some quarters. Equally, the ruling on the Dollar bribery allegation against the governor of Kano state is another judgment that was not so appreciated within some legal sectors. Recently, the Case of F. G. N v
Orji Uzor Kalu left so many issues to question. It wasn’t that the court erred in the judgment but the judgement was not explicit enough to give direction on how the judgment will be enforced with respect to all the defendants in the matter.
“However, it was that uncertainty that prompted Chief Uzor Kalu to hire many lawyers to storm the court again for a further interpretation of the judgement. This is not good for our judiciary. I mean, a situation whereby certain loopholes will be left open in any judgment. That was equally the case in Uzodimma V Ihedioha.
Generally, we cannot say that our judiciary has performed abysmally low in the discharge of their duties recently, but they have equally not been quite fantastic. We believe there is always a room for improvement and we pray for such in near future,” Nwokedi declared.
In my view, there is so much more to desire about our judicial system. To that extent, the performance of the judiciary cannot be any better than the nature of the judicial system we currently operate