When the current Chief Justice of the Federation, (CJN), Justice Dahiru Musdapher took over in August this year, he vowed to reposition the judiciary and restore public confidence in the institution which was then almost dragging itself in the mud as it top brass accuse themselves of corruption.
That was in the wake of the case involving suspended President of the Court of Appeal Justice Ayo Salami, who had accused the then retiring Chief Justice of the Federation, retired Justice Aloysius Katsina-Alu of under hand dealings in the controversial Sokoto governorship election petition.
However, one of the major challenges facing the judiciary and the anti graft agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) have been that of securing convictions against corrupt government officials.
Most times corruption cases linger so much in courts due to certain legal bottlenecks to the extent that they become rusted and those generally perceived to be guilty as charged escape conviction through the application of loose technicalities by smart lawyers.
Issues worsened to the extent that most Nigerians no longer have hope in the ability of the judiciary and the anti-graft agencies to nail corrupt officials and this has led to the flourishing of the culture of impunity in the country.
It was against this backdrop that the CJN in evolving ways to end the trend issued his pragmatic directive. The event was the 2011 fellows lecture and conferment of honourary fellowship by the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies held in Abuja. The CJN told Judges in the country to ensure that corruption cases rought before them are dispensed of within six months.
Musdapher is of the opinion that when Judges adhere to the directives, it would boost public confidence in the nation’s judiciary, which many noted had lost its integrity as some of the stakeholders in the justice administration had enmeshed themselves in one form of corruption or the order.
Observers of the activities of the judiciary in the recent past are of the view that the revelations following the face-off between Katsina-Alu and Justice Salami have eroded peoples’ confidence in the judiciary as it exposed the arms as not without sin afterall.
While Justice Katsina-Alu bowed out of service on August 28, 2011 having reached the mandatory retirement age of 70 years, Justice Salami was sent on an indefinite suspension, with a recommendation by the National Judicial Council (NJC) to President Goodluck Jonathan that he should be retired from service.
Salami was suspended for alleged, “Misconduct contrary to Rule 1(1) of the Code of Conduct for Judicial Officer of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Consequently, The NJC decided that he should be warned for such unethical conduct which eroded the public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the Judiciary.
Justice Salami accused Justice Katsina-Alu of asking him to compromise the Court of Appeal’s judgment with respect to the Sokoto state Governorship legal battle. He alleged that he was asked by the then CJN to either reconstitute the original panel, which he (Katsina-Alu) believed was about to give a verdict adverse to the governor’s interest or direct the panel to give judgment in the governor’s favour.
The rest is now history as the NJC exonerated Katsina-Alu of blames and recommended the suspension of Salami.
Justice Musdapher, on assumption in office has vowed to restore Nigerians’ confidence in the nation’s judiciary. In pursuit of this objective, he has kick-started a number of reform activities involving relevant stakeholders in the judiciary.
Handing down the directives, Musdapher also called for extensive reforms in the judiciary so as the further immune it from political manipulations and control. He also wanted the panel to examine the implications of serving judges handling political cases for delay in handling regular cases and whether such cases make them vulnerable to corrupt practices.
“In the light of the challenges that the Nigerian judiciary grapples with, there is no disputing the fact that as it stands today, it appears that the society we serve is not entirely satisfied with our performance”, he stated.
Justice Musdapher also wanted the panel to come up with finding on how best to strengthen the mechanism for disciplining erring judges, the propriety of establishing a constitutional court and whether justices of the Supreme Court as the case with the US Supreme Court, can hold office for life in the absence of the infirmity of the body or mind.
And as a way of ensuring quick dispensation of corrupt cases, CJN told judges to ensure that corruption cases brought before them are dispensed of within six months of filing, in view of the importance of such cases to Nigerians.
“Delay in the dispensation of justice remains a major challenge due in large measure to institutional incapacities in the area of infrastructure (especially e-infrastructure), in-built delay mechanisms in the law as well as failings on the part of some judges, the official and private bars, law enforcement agencies, litigants and witnesses.
“If for any reason, the prosecution is not ready to proceed with the case, then the matter should be struck out rather than leaving the public with the impression that the judiciary is not performing its necessary role in curbing corrupt practices in Nigeria”, he said.
He also charged judges not to entertain requests for flavorous injunctions which clever lawyers capitalise on to delay cases and eventually secure reprieve and freedom for their clients.
Musdapher who noted that the success or failure of the nation’s democracy depends largely on the judiciary also said the code of conduct for judicial officers, for public officers and other relevant laws and regulations would be enforced in order to restore public confidence in the nation’s judiciary.
He further came up with a number of reforms which he intended to implement including computerization of operations of the judiciary nationwide to tackle rising backlog of cases, review of method of appointment and elevation of judicial officers, removal of un-productive judges from the bench and understudying the Brazilian judicial system which spends an average of two months and three days to conclude any case filed in courts
However, the CJN’s directives to Nigerian jurists to dispense with corruption cases within six months became a subject of discussion among various strata in the judiciary. While some said it will do well to the nation’s judiciary, others said he (CJN) has no power to alter the rules of the lower courts.
Reacting to the directive, constitutional lawyer and a counsel to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), Barrister Wahab Shittu, Justice Musdapher’s directives to Judges on corruption cases is prompt and appropriate.
According to Shittu, the CJN’s directive is the, “most constructive and most positive intervention in the judicial process over a decade. It is a wakeup call on all who are involved in the administration of justice to take the issue of delay very serious”.
Shittu considered Musdapher’s directives to be a public policy statement and not in the nature of a judicial declaration. The effect he said is that no stakeholder, no judge, no lawyer is entitled to do anything differently if the leadership of the judiciary came up with that kind of statement.
He said the constitution has no stipulation for the conclusion of cases, but that the EFCC Establishment Act 2004, enjoins judges to deal with corruption cases with dispatch.
“This is the first time a public policy pronouncement is coming from the leadership of the judiciary that these sets of cases be concluded within six months. We will make more impact if we have subsidiary rules and regulation or rules of proceeding stipulating the duration for the conclusion of corruption cases, just as we have with election petition cases, which should start and be concluded within 180 days.
Shittu however made case for the establishment of special court for the corruption saying such will boost the war against corruption in the country.
“That is why we should always take the call by the Chairman of the EFCC, Mrs. Farida Waziri for the establishment of special courts serious. It is either we are ready to fight corruption or we are not ready. What I see happening generally is that we pay lip service to in the fight against corruption.
“If we are ready, we should have a special court in place to be manned by Judges of high integrity and the activities of these special courts should also be monitored by a judicial performance monitoring committee”, he said.
Shittu however blamed the delay in judicial proceedings, three fundamental factors, with the first one been the attitude of stakeholders. The attitude of those involved in the judicial process either at the level of the bench or at the level of the bar or at the level of witnesses.
To be able to handle that, he said there is the need for attitudinal change and orientation. Sometimes, he said, delay is caused by the prosecution, who he said are supposed to put their house in order, get the witnesses ready for the court to move on, pointing out that if that is not done, the outcome will be delay of proceedings.
He said counsels are also culpable on the issue of delay as according to him, “they employ all manner of tricks in order to stall the process to justify their pay”. He said the Bench can also cause delay through frivolous and un-warranted adjournments.
“It is a multi-dimensional problem and the best way to address it is to put in place very effective, practical and result oriented rules of procedure that would stipulate maximum period for conclusion of cases.
“And to also ensure that we streamline our rules of technicalities which are part of the delay we are talking about. You know that before going into the merit of a substantive action in a matter, you appeal on interlocutory matter, you take the matter to the Supreme Court while delaying the substantive natter,” he explained and added that there must be disciplinary measures for delaying or abusing judicial proceeding.
Meanwhile, a human rights lawyer and the National Coordinator of the Human Rights & Accountability Initiative (HURAIN), Barrister Peter Odia is of a contrary view on the CJN’s directive to Judges. He said, “as far as I am concerned, the CJN is only expressing his opinion as he cannot tell all Judges in Nigeria that they must dispense with corruption cases within six months”.
Odia explained that that the CJN has no constitutional power to say that. He only has powers to tell only his fellow Judges at the apex court to try to dispense with corruption cases within six months”.
According to the Abuja based lawyer, Justice Musdapher cannot pass down the line as various courts has their own rules which must be changed or amended before such directives can become effective in these courts.
Otherwise, he said, the directive remains “his opinion and a political statement playing to the gallery.”
He said there are no uniform rules across the courts in the country, saying that the Edo state High Court rule is different from that of Abuja High courts as each state has its own High court rules.
“To change such rules, there is the need for the support of the state high court Judge, who has the constitutional powers to amend the High Court rules. The same applies for the Court of Appeal rules. If he wants to be serious with what he said, he needs all the high court chief Judges in all the states of the federation, the support of the Court of Appeal President and the solidarity of the Chief Judge of the Federal High Court and that of Justices of the Supreme Court”.
Odia threw his weight into supporting the establishment of special courts to handle corruption cases. He said practice direction should be given to the special courts if set up to handle cases emanating from the anti-graft agencies. Time, he noted can be abridged to ensure quick dispensation of the cases in the special courts.
Reacting to the directive, the National Publicity Secretary of the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) Rotimi Fashakin said Justice Musdapher is obviously trying to refurbish the already battered image of the Nigerian judiciary by that directive to Judges to dispense with corruption cases within six months.
“The CPC as a party is happy that he is now mindful that Nigerians are now watching him. Nigerians are aware of the Judges who are committed to justice in Nigeria and those who are unconcerned. That is why such persons like rtd. Justice Mohammed Uwais would remain relevant in the Nigerian Judicial system even after retirement.
“I think that such pronouncement would go a long way to reduce the rising wave of corruption in the country. This is because corruption in Nigeria seems to be thriving because those who perpetrate the act know that they can always bribe their ways through the judges, either by plea bargain or through interlocutory injunctions.
“We in CPC are only asking Justice Musdapher to muster political will to follow his pronouncements by ensuring that Judges who fails to comply receives sanctions from the National Judicial Council (NJC). By doing so, other judges who usually compromise justice would be deterred from such act”, the party stated.
And the CJN has said that, “we envision a judicial system that is simple, fast, efficient and responsive to the needs and yearnings of the citizenry. In this respect, we shall ensure full computerization of our operations.
Be is as it may, Nigerians expects the judiciary to evolve water tight ways to ensure speedy dispensation of justice especially on political and corruption issues.
