The Righteous Desire For Quick Dispensation Of Justice In Nigeria: Options For Emergency Reforms

By Othniel A. Ikpibako, Esq

Introduction

One incubus in the administration of justice in Nigeria is the attendant execrable delay. A litigant in virtually all matters has the right of appeal from the lowest court (such as the Customary Court or Area Court) to the Supreme Court. This journey, without an iota of exaggeration, could take over 20 years before the rights and duties of the parties are finally determined. Then, sometimes the second journey of enforcement of a judgment is begun again and could last almost the same duration as the determination of the main case.

In view of the foregoing, there is no denying the fact that the situation of administration of justice in Nigeria requires emergency reforms. The reforms, for quick administration of justice, entail re-organisation of the courts and strengthening of the judicial institution.

Why Reforms in the Administration of Justice in Nigeria

The reasons for the emergency reforms in the administration of justice in Nigeria are as follows:
1. To instil confidence of the citizenry in the administration of justice in Nigeria;
2. To restore investors and businessmen’s confidence in the Nigeria economy, as no investor will ordinarily want to invest in a jurisdiction where commercial disputes could take up to twenty to thirty years before they are resolved with scarce financial resources tied down for such a long period;
3. Judicial adjudication is authoritative, binding and final which is better than alternative dispute resolutions in these regards;
4. Generally, justice delayed is justice denied, as no one who waited for twenty to thirty years before they have their rights finally determined can be said to have justice;
5. International best practice, humanity and human right provisions (for example Section 36 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999) require that the rights and duties of the parties be determined within a reasonable time usually between six months and two years;
6. To secure the jobs of lawyers because as more litigants lose faith in the administration of justice the fewer jobs for lawyers in litigation;
7. Whatever that is not working cannot be conserved, but new approaches must be tried, tested or resorted to for progress; a situation where to get a date at the Supreme Court in a civil case is 10 YEARS AND ABOVE cannot be conserved at all.

The Emergency Reforms in the Administration of Justice in Nigeria

The emergency reforms in the administration of justice in Nigeria are bifurcated into re-organisation of the courts and strengthening of the judicial institution.

Re-organisation of the Courts in Nigeria

The re-organisation of the courts in Nigeria is discussed under two options for emergency reforms.

The First Option for Emergency Reforms is as follows:

a. Appeals on all matters (including all associated matters such as fair hearing and judgment enforcement) commenced in the Magistrate Court should not exceed the Court of Appeal;
b. Appeals on labour matters, matrimonial as well as family and probate matters, torts, contracts, commercial matters, tenancy, questions of customary and sharia laws and all simple offences and misdemeanours (including all associated matters such as fair hearing and judgment enforcement) should not exceed the Court of Appeal;
c. Whenever the Court of Appeal is sitting as a final court to be constituted by a full panel of five Justices;
d. A division of the Supreme Court to be established in Lagos with two full panels of fourteen (14) Justices to take appeals from states in the old Western Region, while Abuja Division with twenty-one (21) Justices to take appeals from the states in the old Northern and Eastern Regions (This recommendation is because over one-third of all litigations in Nigeria and appeals to the Supreme Court emanate from Lagos alone, because of its peculiarity as the commercial hub of the nation).
,,
The Second Option for Emergency Reforms is as follows:

a. To create for each state: State Court of Appeal (SCA) and State Supreme Court (SSC);
b. The SCA and SSC to have jurisdiction to take all appeals from the extant State High Court (SHC) and the SSC shall be the final court in all such appeals;
c. The original jurisdiction of the SHC to be limited to land matters and all non-constitutional matters such as matrimonial as well as family and probate matters, torts, contracts, commercial matters, matters under state laws and offences under state laws;
d. The Federal High Court (FHC) to have original jurisdiction on all constitutional matters, except to the extent limited by law;
e. Appeals from the FHC, National Industrial Court (NIC) and other specialised courts created by the National Assembly to lie to the extant Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Strengthening of the Judicial Institution in Nigeria

Besides re-organisation of the court by any of the above recommended two options for emergency reforms, the judicial institution must be strengthened for the court re-organisation to be meaningful. Strengthening of the judicial institution is basically about financial autonomy for the judiciary (which includes importantly living and dignified wages for the judges) and appointment of competent lawyers as judges. For the purpose of this topic, appointment of competent lawyers as judges is isolated for further discussion.

It is trite that ignorantia judicis est calamitas innocentis (ignorance of the judge is the calamity of the innocent). This maxim presupposes that a judge must be grounded in law and legal procedures not to become the misfortune of the innocent; also, where a judge is not grounded in law and procedures, a lot of applications that deserve bench ruling are adjourned with attendant delay and the ignorant of the judge also contribute to delay in delivering a final judgment including avoidable erroneous decisions.

In light of the foregoing, it is not every lawyer (with the minimum requirement of 10 years post call to bar) that is qualified to be appointed as a judge. Emphatically, a judge is a higher lawyer; it is referred to as elevation from the bar to the bench. Such elevation is only deserved by the best crops or cream de la cream of lawyers who are able and willing to assume the solemn and higher call to duty to do justice between the rich and poor, the high and low, the powerful and powerless, the oppressor and oppressed, and so on, within a reasonable time. In that regard, appointment to the solemn position of a judge requires strictures. The following, in addition to the already established guidelines for appointment of judges, are recommended:

a. The guidelines for selection and appointment of judges should be religiously followed to the letter;
b. Vacancy for appointment of judges should be widely and abundantly publicised, particularly to all the relevant branches of the Nigerian Bar Association so that all interested lawyers can apply;
c. There must be an examination on law, practice and procedure which must be transparently conducted;
d. Only the best candidates who emerge from the examination are to be short-listed for appointment;
e. Appointment as a judge should not be by promotion from any government ministry or used as a political patronage – all interested lawyers must pass through the rigours of the selection process.
Conclusion
It is hopeful that if the above recommendations for emergency reforms are implemented through constitutional amendments, the delay in the administration of justice in Nigeria would be drastically resolved for the overall interest of justice in Nigeria.

Othniel A. Ikpibako, holds a Master of International Law and Diplomacy and Master of Laws.