Although the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF), Lateef Fagbemi (SAN), the Senate President, Godswill Akpabio and the President, Bola Tinubu pledged substantial actions to better the lot of the judiciary during the recent judiciary summit in Abuja, scepticisms from past failures are creating doubts about it ending as rhetoric AMEH OCHOJILA reports that recycling the same persons, who have done nothing over the years to fix the sector, heightens the mistrust and steeps the expected reforms in cautious optimism.
At the centre of the aspirations to reform the justice sector in Nigeria, are the scepticisms over the latest assembly of men and women in the judiciary, who now claim to set the stage for the much-expected reforms at the Judiciary Summit in Abuja. Meanwhile, their previous outings ended in executive cooler and never delivered the expected outcomes.
Before the 2024 summit, there were many others, which ended up as talk shops. However, sensing that the people are not enamoured by these continuous gatherings, the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Lateef Fagbemi (SAN) vowed to give seriousness and potential impact to the discussions.
This, Fagbemi said, cannot be done alone, but with the active collaboration of stakeholders. During the presentation of the communique, the chairman of the Joint Planning Committee of the summit, Dr Babatunde Ajibade (SAN), said the minister is determined to ensure that discussions from the summit are speedily given effect although some require constitutional amendment to give effect to them.
Because he was present, the Senate president, Godswill Akpabio said he would rally the parliament to do the needful in respect of the proposals. He said: “In the coming months, I will invite my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives to deliberate on these proposals with the gravity and diligence they deserve.
“Together, with the insights and support of the judiciary, legal experts, and the Nigerian populace, we will embark on this legislative journey to enshrine these reforms into law.”
President Bola Tinubu reiterated the same commitment. Represented by his Vice, Senator Kashim Shetima, the president said he would ensure that the justice system in Nigeria is not just working but meets the aspirations of the people.
At the summit, stakeholders, including judges and lawyers, recommended a reduction in the influence of the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) in the process of selecting and appointing judicial officers.
They expressed discomfort about the CJN’s current overbearing influence on the process and called for urgent amendments to relevant laws and rules to address the concern.
They also suggested the reduction of the number of cases that make it to the Supreme Court as a way of reducing the current workload of the court and curbing delay.
At the Judicial panel session which included the President of the National Industrial Court, Justice Benedict Kanyip; Dr Oliver Stolpe of the UNODC; Prof Ameze Guobadia of the Faculty of Law, University of Lagos and Dr. Muiz Banire (SAN), moderated by Mrs Funke Adekoya (SAN), the panelists expressed serious concerns about leadership in the judiciary.
They argued that it is a misnomer for the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), who is the chairman of the National Judicial Council (NJC) to also chair the Federal Judicial Service Commission (FJSC), which is the body that initially reviews proposals or lists of candidates to be appointed into the judiciary.
They pointed out that it is inconsistent for the CJN to play both roles, as it would appear that he is recommending candidates to himself being chairman of both bodies and being the person who appoints a significant number of the members of both bodies other than those who are statutory members.
The consensus reached by this panel was that the role of the NJC in discharging its responsibility for judicial appointments into the Superior Court of record required significant review.
“There was a consensus that there was a need to reconstitute or proposed the reconstitution of these bodies, both the National Judicial Council and the Federal Judicial Service Commission,” part of the communique reads.
The second panel during the technical session of the summit also focused on the role of the State Judicial Service Commission and also concluded that there was a significant need for reform in the performance of their roles.
There were quite a lot of observations made by the two former Attorneys General who had participated as members or statutory members of the State Judicial Service Commissions in one form or the other about the composition of the state judicial Service Commissions.
“The current NJC Guidelines may have subverted the intent of the constitutional provision, empowering the State Judicial Service Commissions to make judicial appointments, because the NJC guidelines, rather than authorising the State Judicial Service Commissions to prepare a shortlist of potential candidates for judicial appointments, appear to have placed that responsibility solely in the chairman.
“And the chairmen of the State Judicial Service Commissions are the Chief Judges of the states. So, there was a pointed suggestion that in the short term, even before we get to constitutional amendments, regarding the composition of State Judicial Service Commissions, a low-hanging fruit that could be dealt with immediately, is an amendment of that aspect of the NJC guidelines to make clear that the development or preparation of shortlist of candidates for judicial appointments is something that is to be done by the Commissions as a whole and not just by the Chief Judge,” the summit stated in its communique.
Activist lawyer, Douglas Ogbankwa, said the judiciary needs a comprehensive reform, which the summit was not able to point out. He said the sector particularly needs to embrace technology and improve efficiency. Ogbankwa attributed the slow pace of justice delivery to the refusal to embrace the use of ICT to dispense justice.
The lawyer argued that it was the same heads of courts who had supervised judgment against the independence of the Judiciary in their states that were assembled to find solutions to the Judiciary. Efforts by former President Muhammadu Buhari to ensure the independence of the judicial and legislative arms of government at the state levels, he recalled, suffered a major setback at the Supreme Court.
In the judgment, which bordered on the implementation of financial autonomy for state legislature and judiciary 2020 (Executive Order 10), signed by Buhari, the Supreme Court invalidated the order, saying that federal executive order should not extend to federating states.
Buhari’s order had given the Accountant General of the Federation the authority to deduct from state allocations funds not released to state legislatures or judiciaries directly to the concerned state bodies.
But the apex court, in a majority decision, held that President Buhari had overstepped his constitutional authority by issuing the order, thereby infringing on the autonomy and delineation of powers as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution. The majority decision held that the action was unconstitutional, illegal and void.
The judgment emphasised that the order violated the federal structure outlined in the constitution, which delineates distinct powers between the states and the federal government. However, Justice Musa Abba-Aji dissented, arguing that Executive Order 10 was a necessary measure to enforce the financial autonomy of state legislatures and judiciaries, which state executives had historically undermined.
Ogbankwa argued that the summit would have involved reformists in addressing the challenges of the judiciary holistically. He suggested various measures needed to improve the sector including e-filing, verbatim recording systems, teleconferencing, and setting up WhatsApp groups for court officials and Bar leaders for ease of communication.
Also, the chairman of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Bwari Branch, Paul Daudu identified several challenges currently facing the administration of justice in Nigeria, including prolonged pre-trial detention, delayed trials, lack of access to legal representation, poor case management, and in some instances, conflicting and perverse judgments from superior courts of record.
Human rights lawyer, Deji Ajare, believes that similar efforts in the past have often ended up neglected and overlooked, ultimately finding their way to the dustbin of history. He stressed that there is no shortage of innovative ideas and proposals aimed at reforming the justice sector in Nigeria. According to him, the primary obstacle has been the lack of sustained political will to translate these ideas into concrete actions and reforms.
The recurring challenge, Ajare noted, has not been a dearth of viable solutions or strategies, but rather a deficiency in political will and institutional resolve to effect lasting change. He added that without a steadfast dedication to overcoming bureaucratic hurdles, vested interests, and systemic inertia, the risk of history repeating itself still looms large.
He said: “It is incumbent upon all parties involved – from government officials to civil society advocates to legal practitioners – to remain vigilant, proactive, and resolute in holding accountable those responsible for driving forward the reform agenda.
“We must all genuinely seek to harness the energy and insights garnered from the national summit to galvanise a renewed sense of purpose and urgency in transforming Nigeria’s justice system.
“The time for mere rhetoric and symbolic gestures has long passed; now is the moment for decisive, concerted, and principled action to ensure that this latest endeavour does not meet the same fate as its predecessors.”
He, however, expressed hope that the current AGF, who is the chief law officer of the federation and upon whom the burden for driving most of the needed reforms lies, would work to effect the changes that have long eluded the sector.
