However, no one, certainly
not the judges, should be under any illusion that an increase in the number of
judges is all that is required to resolve the lingering problems of justice
administration. Delay in dispensing justice is equally a matter of abuse and
manipulation of judicial process by key actors, including lawyers and judges.
For instance, nothing stops a litigant or his lawyer from seeking adjournments
of proceedings, even on frivolous grounds; but a judge who willingly offers
himself for the approval of such flimsy applications is as much to blame. In
the final view, therefore, the quality, rather than the number of new judges,
is paramount to uplifting justice delivery in the Federal High Court or any
other subsector of the judiciary.
Approval by the president
of the appointment of 30 new judges for the court followed the recommendation
of the National Judicial Council (NJC). It rises by that figure, the number of
judges of the Federal High Court which hitherto had 55 judges in about 38
divisions of the court across the federation. The judges have been administered
their oath of office. Their appointment, under the NJC’s new guidelines, was
underpinned by the need to ensure transparency; and prevent corrupt and
indolent persons from finding their way to the bench.
While the exercise is
ordinarily a routine of government, and the appointment is a fait accompli, the
point really is whether government was sufficiently mindful of the quality of
those appointed. Since the division of modern government into three arms, each
arm of government has become habituated to certain role. The judiciary breathes
life into the grundnorm through its interpretative role. Indeed, judges play
many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence and superintend trial
processes. In the largely adversarial justice system, judges are expected to
stay above the fray. This is exactly what the new guidelines seek to entrench.
As the Chief Justice of the Federation, Justice
Mahmud Muhammed, rightly observed, “Acts such as
lobbying for appointment, exhibition of bad behaviour in and out of court,
influence peddling, rendering dishonest or questionable legal opinions,
submission of false credentials, are just some of those conducts exhaustively
listed in the 2014 guidelines as acts that would preclude appointment to
judicial office.”
The Nigerian experience in
terms of the role of judges has been mixed. Nigeria has had good judges in the
past. There were those who could be referred to as the Lords of the Roll in
their excellent disquisitions. On the contrary, the NJC have had to dismiss
some other judges from the temple of justice. Since the inception of the
prevalent democratic dispensation, corruption has infiltrated the temple of
justice to the extent that those who felt that the hope of the common man was
in jeopardy had to speak out against the corroding effect of corrupt practices
on the bench.
In 1994, Justice Kayode Eso, then of the Supreme
Court, headed a high level inquiry into corruption in the judiciary which
recommended the sack of 47 judges, although only six were eventually sacked
after another review by the Obasanjo Administration in 2002. Other
conscientious justices, including former Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mariam Mukhtar, have also
spoken about the unwholesome practices in the judiciary.
So, it bears repeating that
the problem of the judiciary is not so much about appointment, but rather the
personality of the appointees. It is hoped that those called to the bench would
be above board. They must see their appointment as a call to duty. The
prescriptive, moral and legal voice of Almighty God is embedded in that duty.
The society has become one where the obsession for wealth is not through hard
work but through filthy lucre and other unproductive and dubious means.
Therefore, it is important that judges do not see themselves as being in a
position of affluence, but one for ordering the society.
The appointment of judges
should always be based on merit and earned reputation for fairness and honesty
instead of being outcome of patrimonial pandering, dispensed by political
office holders as courtesies in expectation of protection. They must be found
fit and proper on the bench. Wisdom and morals are uncompromising requisites.
It goes beyond the Aristotelian ‘doctrine of the mean.’ Rather than the moral
average, Nigerians seek the moral maximum for the judges in the nation’s
judiciary. The rule of law and just dispensation of justice are imperative for
order and the consolidation of the country’s democratic process. (Guardian)
No comments:
Post a Comment