16th July, 2012
Justice Mariam Aloma Mukhtar has a lot on her plate, as she starts life as the head of the judiciary
Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, the new Chief Justice of Nigeria, CJN, has a sparkling reputation as a jurist. Now, as the country’s top judicial officer, that reputation will attract scrutiny by the minute. Why? The challenges she faces are huge and daunting
Obtaining justice, especially for the less privileged, is increasingly seeming an impossibility. The judiciary, the vaunted last hope of the common man, has become the playground of the rich and powerful. Justice is widely thought to be for sale, with judges the major dealers. Many judges have indeed been found to be corrupt. Much as the CJN’s résumé appeals to Nigerians, she will be expected to restore the people’s trust in the courts. It is argued that to achieve this, she must come to the office with gallons of disinfectants. The judiciary has become putrid, with judges living well beyond their legitimate earnings.
Aside prudent living, effective leadership is a viable antidote to corruption. Justice Mukhtar is reputed for her courage. She will be expected to translate this into her supervisory functions. Salman Jawondo, a lawyer, advised the CJN to be ruthless towards graft and its perpetrators. “Leadership matters. We have a leader that those who are under her know will not tolerate any untoward act and if you are found, you are on your own,” he told TheNEWS. Jawondo advocated trust and cooperation from judges at all levels to ensure the CJN positively transforms the process of justice administration in the country.
The Supreme Court will itself require some overhaul. The mountain of cases that judges attend has to be reduced to a manageable size. Unless there is a drastic reduction in judges’ workload at the Supreme Court, speedy and effective dispensation of justice will remain a mirage. There are credible opinions that given the population of Nigeria, the nation should have a decentralised Supreme Court. It is argued that each region should have a quasi-independent Supreme Court. The central court, it is argued, should attend to complex cases that cannot be handled by the regional courts. The system will function better if the reform process is extended to the rules of the court.
Revising the Supreme Court Rules Manual, time allowed for filing of appeals emanating from the subordinate courts and the vexed issue of getting a complementary number of judges required to man the Supreme Court deserve urgent attention to meet the present circumstances.
Mukhtar will need to extend her vision beyond the Supreme Court. There is a need to strengthen the relationship between the Bar and the Bench. This will help both bodies to maintain discipline in the system.
Judges’ welfare is expected to be a top priority for Mukhtar. It is not difficult to see why this is imperative. Judges work long hours, sometimes treating interlocutory injunctions that many have posited should be the preserve of the lower courts. The courts have a phobia for modernisation. Judges deliver tomes of judgments written in long hand because the use of Information Communication Technology is peripheral. It is pertinent that Justice Mukhtar sees to reality, her predecessor’s dream of reforming the manual operations during court proceedings, especially judges’ record of proceedings.
A major issue is the Supreme Court’s inability to run a functional, up-to-date website on which latest judgments and important information on judges can easily be accessed. The system of awarding cost against defaulting parties also requires attention. Awarding minimal cost against an offender hardly achieves deterrence.
Nigeria’s democracy is shaky. The judiciary has a key role to play in sustaining it. An analyst believes that for democracy to survive, the judiciary must “strive to entrench constitutionalism, due process, rule of law, transparency, accountability, respect for human rights and, above all, good governance”.
Mukhtar has inherited a good foundation to build upon. On his assumption of office, her predecessor, Justice Musdapher introduced measures aimed at restoring integrity in the judiciary and make its officers more responsible, efficient and disciplined.
He set set up a 29-man panel on judicial reforms. It was headed by a former CJN, Justice Mohammed Lawal Uwais. One of the recommendations of the panel was the immediate re-instatement of Justice Ayo Salami to his position as the President of the Court of Appeal, declaring that there was no justification for his suspension in the first instance. Though there was opposition to actualisation of the recommendations among some members of the NJC, the judicial body passed a resolution asking the President to reinstate Salami. The President is yet to comply.
Also, the practice directions issued by Musdapher on Election Appeals to the Supreme Court last November is believed to have helped in quick dispensation of election petitions by justices of the apex court. And a few weeks ago, Musdapher indicated his intention to accelerate the hearing of corruption cases. He announced the intention to assign high profile corruption cases to some judges from the higher Bench. He added that judges will hear the cases without any adjournment longer than 24 hours. But he was unable to accomplish this before he left office. Musdapher was also able to re-establish a cordial relationship between the Bar and the Bench over contentious issues like the process of appointment of Senior Advocates of Nigeria. The former CJN had also promised to computerise the litigation process for the improvement of filing and case management and ultimately to bring about quicker dispensation of justice as well as a measurement system to weed out lazy, non-performing judicial and non-judicial officers. Some of the core reforms are, however, unattainable without amendments to sections of the constitution dealing with them.
Musdapher also set off the process of the amendments, when he presented a bill tagged “Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (5th Alteration) Bill, 2012” to David Mark, President of the Senate, about three weeks ago. The former CJN proposed about 50 amendments to the Constitution as it relates to the judiciary. Some of the key proposals relate to the number of Justices of the Supreme Court, qualification for appointment as justice, retirement age and discipline and modification of the appellate jurisdiction of the apex court in a way that will ensure that interlocutory appeals and related matters can only be heard by the consent of the Supreme Court. Thus, like the United States’ Supreme Court, the Supreme Court can refuse to entertain an appeal if the amendments sail through. He also proposed a change to Section 233 of the 1999 Constitution as amended to ensure that disputes over chieftaincy affairs terminate at the Court of Appeal. Musdapher also asked for the creation of an advisory jurisdiction for the Supreme Court through the insertion of a new section, Section 232 (A). Another proposed amendment seeks to return the Federal High Court to its core traditional jurisdiction by ensuring that only cases that affect the Federal Government and its agencies are heard at the court. The proposed amendments have the potential to reduce the case load and fast track dispensation of justice at both levels of the judiciary.
Musdapher also suggested an increase in the number of years a candidate must have practised as a lawyer before qualification for appointment into any of the courts. To qualify for appointment as a Justice of Supreme Court, the former CJN proposed an increment from the current 15 years post-call to 25 years, while he recommended a post-call experience of 20 years as against the present 12 years for qualification for appointment as a justice of the Court of Appeal. For a lawyer to qualify for appointment as a judge of the High Court, Musdapher proposed a 15-year post-call experience as against the current 10 years.
Also proposed was a reduction in the number of justices at the apex court from 21 to 16. But contrary to popular opinion, Musdapher canvassed for the retention of the CJN as the head of the judiciary and Chairman of the National Judicial Council. This is contrary to calls by lawyers and other stakeholders that the headship of both institutions be separated, as NJC members may lack the courage to appropriately sanction the CJN if and when the need arises. The danger of making the CJN the head of NJC was reflected in the role played by the NJC in the Katsina-Alu versus Salami saga. Some top lawyers and other stakeholders described the proposals as not sufficiently far-reaching for the kind of surgical reform Musdapher himself admitted that the judiciary needs.
Rather than the proposed increase in the years of qualification for appointment as a way of ensuring that only competent and credible people are appointed, critics argued that what is needed is a systemic reform that will put merit, record of performance and high degree of integrity at the core of appointment requirements. Critics pointed out that the current situation in which most of the new appointees to the Bench are sons and daughters of retired or serving judges cannot ensure credibility.
Then, there is the argument that the delay in passing judgments, in many instances, has to do with commitment and discipline on the part of the judges rather than the number of cases. Also faulted by critics is the CJN’s proposal for a reduction in the number of justices at the apex court. They wondered how the much desired quick dispensation of justice can be achieved if the number of justices are reduced. Nevertheless, many lawyers are of the view that Musdapher succeeded in laying the foundation of reforms that Mukhtar can build upon. This is more so with the argument that some of the proposed amendments can be achieved through simple change of rule or practice direction. Mukhtar has admitted that there is corruption in the judiciary.
During her confirmation hearing, Mukhtar indicated her aversion to establishing special courts, though she was asked the question in relation to trial of suspected terrorists. But she is receptive to the idea of dedicating judges for the trial of the suspects, an idea which she can also extend to the trial of corruption cases.
—Oluokun Ayorinde & Nkrumah Bankong-Obi/TheNEWS Magazine