Reforming judiciary and office of Chief Justice 

Rising concerns over the enormous powers of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) underscore the exigency for holistic reform of the Nigerian justice system. At a conference recently organised by TAP Initiative on “Impact of judicial accountability on democratic resilience and public trust in the legal system,” the discussants, mainly senior lawyers and jurists, called for the unbundling of the CJN’s office.  As presently structured, the CJN is chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC), Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), National Judicial Institute (NJI), and Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee (LPPC).

Querying this structure, the discussants opined that it would be difficult for the NJC to exercise disciplinary control over judicial officers, including the CJN, since most of its members and judges are appointed by the CJN. While positing that the situation is one of the greatest reasons for the dwindling trust Nigerians have in the judiciary, they also advocated bold actions to revamp the judiciary, emphasising the need for accountability and transparency.

The CJN doubles as the highest judicial officer, and chief administrative judicial officer of the Nigerian judiciary. For cohesive administration of the judiciary as a single organ of government, the Constitution clothed the office of the CJN with wide powers. However, these powers or the alleged abuse of the same has become a subject of controversy. The issue was amplified by a former Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Dattijo Muhammad (rtd), when he, during his retirement valedictory speech, openly accused the CJN of running the affairs of the judiciary as a sole administrator.

According to Mr. Muhammad, the CJN appoints members of the NJC, FJSC, NJI, and LPPC at his pleasure. “He neither confers with fellow justices nor seeks their counsel or input on any matter related to these bodies. He has both the final and the only say. The senior jurist further submits that “such enormous powers are effortlessly abused’ and pose a threat to effective “judicial oversight in the country.”

As the saying goes, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Undoubtedly, there is a tendency that power will be abused where there are no control mechanisms. While the argument for the unbundling of the office of the CJN is apposite, however, the Constitution did not adorn the office with absolute powers. On the contrary, the occupier of the office is only made the team lead of the various national judicial bodies, including the Supreme Court. Therefore, the CJN is constitutionally and morally obligated to confer with his teammates in running the affairs of the judiciary.

The real issue in controversy is whether successive occupiers of the office of the CJN have been exercising their powers strictly within the ambit of the law. Whilst the CJN is the forerunner of the judiciary, he is not expected to run it in isolation from other principal members. He is duty-bound to run an all-inclusive style of administration where every member of his team is treated fairly and respectfully. Members of judicial bodies should be given equal opportunity to make their respective contributions to developing the judiciary.  Contentious issues should be resolved via voting, and the CJN should only be entitled to a second casting vote where there is a tie. The Chief Justice of Nigeria is the image maker of the judiciary – how he runs the judiciary determines how the public will perceive it. Indeed, it is worrisome if a CJN is unable to run the inner caucus of a few law lords fairly and justly. What then becomes the faith of the common Nigerian?

Nonetheless, unbundling the office of the CJN may not be the remedy, as the crux of the matter is not the extent of the powers but how it is exercised. The CJN office will be merely titular and greatly undermined if the headship of the national judicial bodies is vested in different persons. There will be a constant conflict of superiority among the various heads which will further destabilise the judiciary. More so, justice dispensation will likely suffer as the judicial heads will be more engrossed in power play than their core responsibilities. It is not difficult to imagine political instability if the powers of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces reside in a person other than the President.

Unarguably, the Nigerian judiciary as presently constituted is inherently defective and needs to undergo far-reaching reforms to regain its glorious past. Its operations are marred by biased recruitment/elevation processes, controversial decisions, conflicting judgments, a flagrant departure from binding precedent by lower courts, long trials, court congestion, and unethical conduct of some jurists and lawyers. The fact that the Body of Benchers recently constituted a committee to address incessant conflicting judgments shows how low the judiciary has sunk.

Appointments of judges should be based on merit, competence, skill, good character, and a proven track record. Judges should not be hired or promoted because they can “learn on the job” but because they possess sound knowledge of the law. Also, cases should be timely determined because justice delayed is justice denied. To further decongest the court, time-wasting practices such as manual recording of proceedings and needless adjournments should be jettisoned. Furthermore, the practice of starting a matter de novo should be carefully reviewed, even with consideration that judges should have the benefit of observing first-hand the conduct and demeanour of parties. Why reinvent the wheel when the new judge can simply continue from where his brother judge stopped?

Judges should desist from indulging lawyers who wilfully stall proceedings via frivolous applications or undue absenteeism aimed at frustrating the opposing party. Frivolous applications should be promptly struck out and lawyers involved in delay tactics should be reported to the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Committee (LPDC). Similarly, the court should stop obliging prosecutors, who after arraigning a suspect in court, then prays for indefinite adjournment to seek the Director of Public Prosecution’s advice while the suspect remains in detention. This is partly responsible for prison congestion.

Ideally, proper investigation, including consulting the DPP, should precede arraignment and trial. If the prosecutor is unsure of the next line of action, the matter should be dismissed and the detainee set free in recognition of his right to presumption of innocence and freedom of liberty.  The court should not be seen to be enabling the indolence of prosecutors.

Additionally, the chief justices of the states should exercise their powers to grant amnesty to inmates more frequently. Many detainees are facing allegations over simple offences with minimal jail terms but have spent several years in incarceration awaiting trials. Pray, what societal good does such detention serve?

Furthermore, each court should have a compendium of its (select) judgments and those of courts of coordinate jurisdictions that are well-founded on the principles of law, justice, equity, good conscience, and public policy to serve as a guide and guard against conflicting judgments. A situation where cases with similar facts are decided differently by the same court is bizarre.

Importantly, the Nigerian legal landscape has reached a very frightening threshold where senior members of the bar not only publicly comment on cases pending before courts but also either pre-empt the judgments of the courts or castigate the court for deciding a case in a particular way. The Nigerian Bar Association should ensure that such contemptuous acts are sanctioned.

For democracy to strive in this country, an improved justice system that is entrenched on the pillars of justice, transparency, integrity, fairness, equity and equality is required. However, to clear the Augean stables of the judiciary, all hands must be on deck namely; the government, jurists, legal experts, court officials, law enforcement agencies, Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and members of the society.