One sole agenda that has always been the top most priority of successive CJN has been judicial reform and fight against corruption. KEHINDE OSASONA in this report writes on why it has been difficult to achieve it.
An OverviewUndue subordination in the hands of the executive and the legislative arms of government, according to stakeholders’ in the judicial firmament, has over the years rendered the arm of government ineffective.
Recently, while speaking at the Nigerian Bar Association’s (NBA) annual general conference in Lagos, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, (CJN) Tanko Muhammad, reiterated the need to urgently address dearth of facilities, structures and other challenges bedeviling the judiciary as more justices are appointed.
He pledged his commitment towards achieving the planned objective, saying that he would carry out series of reforms that would extricate the judiciary from executive wrecklessness.
He said, “I am optimistic that the judiciary would soon be financially independent. I will also work towards achieving holistic independence for the judiciary in terms of everything.”
Significantly, Justice Mohammad’s predecessors have, at different times, initiated reforms aimed towards re positioning it for the task ahead.
Before now, concerned citizens have argued that the arm of government appeared to have lost its steam of adjudication which depicted it with the phrase ‘Last hope of the common man’.
Apart from various allegations of corruption against some judges by the federal government, some bribery scandal have equally dragged its name in the mud.
Tie-back While out-lining major areas in the judiciary that needed reforms during his reign, the immediate past CJN, Walter Onnoghen hinted that the Supreme Court handed down 243 judgments out of a total of 1,362 cases it treated within the 2016/2017 legal year.
Speaking further at an event to mark the opening of a new legal year for the judiciary and swearing-in ceremony of new Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SAN) in 2017, the former CJN said the number of determined cases was a positive development, despite what he called the numerous challenges faced by the judiciary during the year under review.
He said, “In the course of the 2016/2017 legal year, the Supreme Court considered a total number of 1,362 matters comprising motions, appeals and judgments.
“Under motions, we heard 82 political, 675 civil and 208 criminal motions totaling 965.The court also considered a total number of 394 appeals comprising 96 political, 174 civil and 124 criminal. In total, 243 judgments were delivered in the 2016/2017 legal year.
“This is by all means an impressive report considering the persistent and increasing volume of cases that continue to come before this court. I attribute this impressive performance to the hardwork of judicial officers, support staff and the reforms we are implementing to improve justice delivery,” Onnoghen said.
Onnoghen nevertheless condemned the attitude of some politically-exposed persons who appear in court with a large number of legal representatives, saying the development stagnate the movement of activities in court.
He gave a new directive that lawyers representing anyone in court must not exceed five at a sitting.
“I have also observed the practice by members of the Bar wherein a lead counsel appears before the courts in the representation of a client with as many as 100 and even more lawyers. This translates to an unfortunate yet avoidable waste of the time of the court, which has to record the appearance of all counsels before it.
“Most of such entourages hardly have any active roles or participation in the matter for which they appear. Furthermore, such a large number of counsel fill up the courtroom thereby depriving other counsels for other matters as well as members of the public enough room to sit and observe proceedings within the courtroom.
“Some are therefore forced to stand or sit on the floor in a most undignified manner. This practice consumes space, time and more often than not, adds no serious value or serves any meaningful purpose to the case. If anything, it brings about undue sensationalism, an outcome which members of this noble profession are enjoined to shun.
“I have therefore issued a directive which should extend to other courts that lawyers appearing in the Supreme Court should not be more than five for each party, including the lead counsel.
“We must accept that acts of misconduct of a few rub off on the rest of the judiciary and create the impression that all judicial officers have their hands soiled with the proceeds of corruption.
“Let me be clear here; it is not going to be business as usual for the few unscrupulous elements in our midst. I am determined to redeem the unfairly battered image of the judiciary. Any judicial officer found wanting would be dealt with decisively, and shown the way out swiftly.”
War against corruption as cardinal pointSome stakeholders have however argued that reforms introduced by the immediate past CJN, Justice Walter Onnoghen, to tackle corruption in the judiciary including committees set up to monitor judges and corruption cases, which should be made one of the cardinal points, appears to have been jettisoned by the present CJN Muhammad Tanko-led judiciary.
Recall that in the twilight of his tenure, CJN Onnoghen inaugurated Anti-Corruption Cases Trial Monitoring Committee as part of judicial reforms to ensure that the judiciary would dispense justice promptly on corruption cases in compliance with the letters and spirit of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Also, judges handling such cases were mandated to compile data containing all relevant information on the cases and present them to the committee.The committee, which was active during Onnoghen’s tenure, ensured that heads of courts move against prosecution and defence counsel who indulged in the unethical practices of delaying and stalling criminal trials.
Consolidating on feats, without doubt, the nation’s judiciary needs consolidation of various reforms by successive chief justices of Nigeria in order to redeem the image of the judiciary.However, in doing that, the Justice Muhammad’s successors should strive to strengthen the judiciary by leveraging on the various existing optimistic plans by his predecessor to rid the judiciary of bribery and corruption.At this juncture, it would not be out of place to ask: Is the task of ridding the judiciary of corruption a difficult mission to accomplish?Analysts are of the opinion that time would tell.
