When the Bar accused the Bench of
corruption, and the Bench put the accusation in dispute, the issue cannot
simply be wished away. Nigerians need to know what the exact position is, in
order to steer the country aright.
In retrospect, the Bar’s accusation,
as leveled the other day by President of the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Augustine Alegeh, can be located in the
main between lawyers and judges. What is required, instead of the two arms of
the legal profession trading blames, is for genuine cooperation, aimed
singularly at restoring the revered position of the judiciary. For in the long
run, the judiciary, even now that corruption menace has become widespread and
endemic in many sectors, remains the only hope of the common man.
That almost all the sectors of the
country are blighted by corruption is a sickening fact that Nigerians do not
attempt to dispute. From the political class to public and private businesses,
there are noticeable ravages of corruption. President Muhammadu Buhari spoke
significantly of this problem when he observed during his inauguration that if
corruption was not checked, it would ruin the nation.
Sadly, the developments in the
judiciary now do not support any hope that the judiciary is immune to the
pervasive corruption. It was therefore highly instructive when Alegeh, at the
commencement of the 2015-2016 legal year and the swearing-in of new Senior
Advocates of Nigeria (SANs), specifically accused some judges of rendering
judgments for fees. But the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN), Justice Mahmud Mohammed, insisted on
the integrity of judicial officers.
Alegeh’s allegation is not new. The
immediate past CJN, Aloma Muktar, had also blamed both the judges and lawyers
for encouraging corruption. And before Muktar, the late Justice of the Supreme
Court, Kayode Eso, had asserted that
the judiciary was polluted by corrupt judges who must be removed to restore
credibility to the justice sector. Importantly, the nation’s judiciary and
judges used to be highly respected worldwide. The challenge before the Bar and
the Bench now is how to collaborate to ensure that corrupt lawyers and judges
are removed from the judiciary in order for it to retain its respect as a
hallowed institution.
Ridding the judiciary of corruption
must necessarily start with rigorous review of their appointment processes so
that only those who are eligible not only by professional competence but also
by character are allowed to become members of the Bench. Where judges are
appointed because they can pay for their positions, justice should not be
expected. It is judges who emerge through such a mercantilist system that
easily seek other means outside their salaries to recoup the investments they
have made to attain their positions. Notably, Alegeh gave a hint that the
practice of shrouding appointment processes of judges in secrecy in the past
may be fuelling the corrupt system.
Obviously, where the process
appointing judges has been deliberately skewed towards undue advantage, those
who have their integrity to protect do not show interest in the Bench. There is
therefore the need for the appointment to be made transparent so that the Bench
can accommodate as many people who are qualified and are interested in it. When
the number of judges increases, this would reduce the workload on the existing
ones and cases would be handled swiftly. When cases are treated speedily,
opportunity for corruption would be minimised.
There should also be a credible
process of disciplining erring judges. The existing system whereby judges try
their own colleagues who are accused of corruption has not paved the way for
transparency and accountability in the sector. The position of late Justice Eso
is apposite in this respect, that the National Judicial Council (NJC) be
substituted with a Judicial Performance Commission. According to him, there was
no way the country could overcome the problems of the judiciary presided over
by the CJN where most of the members would be appointed by the CJN himself or
herself to sit as judges to discipline their erring colleagues. He wondered
what would happen if the CJN was the person accused of corruption.
In the short term, the NBA must
demonstrate its commitment to fighting corruption in the judiciary by accepting
the challenge of the CJN for lawyers to expose the corrupt judges. Lawyers
cannot exonerate themselves, for they are often the conduits for the
transmission of corrupt proceeds to the judges. Similarly, judges should accept
the CJN’s admonition to be stringent with corruption cases by, for instance
refusing frivolous applications that put justice in question. Why would a judge
grant a perpetual injunction against the arrest or prosecution of a person who
has been accused of corruption, instead of making it possible for the accused
to properly defend himself?
In addition, governments should
embrace measures, like those taken by Lagos State, to improve the welfare of
judges and thus enhance their self-esteem. Such measures would also attract the
best judges – in character and professional competence – to the Bench.
(guardian)
No comments:
Post a Comment