INTRODUCTION
On 22 August 2024, the Chief Justice of Nigeria will retire on attaining the mandatory age of 70 and a new Chief Justice will be due to assume office. This transition will take place at a time when the judiciary confronts far-reaching challenges to its authority and reputation, most of them self-inflicted. The institutional credibility of the judicial branch in Nigeria has never been lower in public esteem. This context presents the new incoming Chief Justice with a challenge which is also an opportunity to articulate an agenda for judicial reform and restore public trust and confidence in the judiciary. As an organization and individuals, we seek to contribute to the distillation of this agenda.
As the new Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) takes office, a critical agenda must be established to address key issues undermining the judiciary’s integrity and effectiveness. This includes:
ensuring merit-based judicial appointments in line with Section 231 of 1999 Constitution of The Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), and countering nepotism and favoritism that have historically compromised the judiciary’s credibility;
addressing the problem of abuse of interim injunctions and ex-parte Orders as well as conflicting judgments by implementing clear guidelines and improving judicial coordination.
enhancing discipline and accountability within the judiciary;
addressing the crisis of political cases, election petitions, and judicialization of politics; and
reform of the Supreme Court.
APPOINTMENT OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS
The National Judicial Council (NJC), chaired by the CJN, which oversees judicial appointments, has faced criticism for its handling of judicial appointments. In 2020, the NJC advertised 15 vacancies for the Federal Capital Territory High Court but nominated 34 candidates, many of whom were connected to judicial insiders. Recently, the outgoing CJN, Honourable Justice Olukayode Ariwoola supervised the appointments and elevation of his family members to the Federal High Court, FCT High Court and the National Industrial Courts, respectively, in violation of Rule II (iv) of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers.
Also, reports from human rights lawyer Femi Falana highlighted troubling instances, such as the appointment of a candidate who scored zero in the NJC interview, further exacerbating concerns about the fairness and transparency of the selection process. These examples underscore a persistent pattern of nepotism that erodes public trust in the judiciary and questions the impartiality of its decisions.
The NJC have disregard for its own Guidelines on Judicial Appointments. For instance, Rule One of the Revised Code of Conduct for Judicial Officers stipulates that the Federal Judicial Commission, State Judicial Service Commission and the Judicial Service Committee of the Federal Capital Territory shall comply with the Rules in advice to the NJC for appointment of Judicial Officers for Superior Courts of Record under the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended).
If the NJC did not jettison Rule One of its own Code of Conduct, recent appointments that have been marred with clear cases of nepotism and favoritism, raising concerns about the misuse of authority, undermining of merit-based appointments which compromises judicial integrity and breeds loss of confidence in the judiciary would not have been approved and recommended by the NJC.
We therefore implore you, Honourable Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, CFR as the incoming CJN to uphold the highest standards of justice in Nigeria by ensuring that all judicial appointments are made based on merit, experience and integrity. That judicial appointments under your leadership should undergo a transparent selection process in order to uphold the highest standards of justice and restore confidence in the Nigerian judiciary among citizens and keen observers.
Implementing the merit-based system requires a commitment to upholding the principles of fairness and integrity within the judiciary. Your new role as the CJN will be crucial in setting a precedent for future appointments and in ensuring that the judiciary operates with the highest standards of professionalism and impartiality. By reinforcing merit-based selection and transparency, the judiciary can address past shortcomings and work towards a more just and equitable legal system that upholds the democratic values enshrined in the Nigerian Constitution.
CONFLICTING JUDGMENTS AND ABUSE OF INTERIM INJUNCTIONS
Rule 3 (3.5) provides that, “a Judicial Officer must avoid the abuse of the power of issuing interim injunctions, ex parte”. My Lordship, addressing the issue of multiple interim injunctions and conflicting judgments is also paramount in your new role as Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) to restore public trust and ensure judicial efficiency. Conflicting interim injunctions between the Federal High Court and Kano State High Court of Justice on Chieftaincy matters in Kano state has been a source of concern to many. Also, the 2023 Anambra State governorship election, where different High Courts issued conflicting Orders regarding the candidacy of political parties, highlights the need for clear guidelines. Also, the leadership crisis within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), where multiple courts issued contradictory Orders concerning the suspension and reinstatement of its National Chairman, Uche Secondus, underscores this need.
To mitigate such issues, My Lordship, it is essential to establish comprehensive guidelines that detail the procedural and substantive standards for issuing Interim Orders. This approach is supported by Section 6 of the Constitution, which grants judicial powers to the courts and necessitates a structured approach to prevent contradictory rulings. Implementing these guidelines will provide a coherent framework for judges, ensuring consistency and reducing the likelihood of conflicting judgments.
Improving coordination among judges and courts is another critical step in managing multiple interim injunctions and conflicting judgments. The establishment of a centralized database or communication platform for judges to share information on ongoing cases, especially those with the potential for conflicting orders, is vital. Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution guarantees fair hearing and uniformity in legal proceedings, these highlights the need for coordinated judicial activities. By enhancing communication and coordination among judges across different jurisdictions, the judiciary can ensure consistency in its rulings. This step is crucial in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system and upholding the rule of law. It would also strengthen review mechanisms. A robust review mechanism where higher courts or a special judicial review committee can promptly intervene to reconcile conflicting judgments will address and resolve instances of conflicting judgments promptly and effectively. This measure is vital for maintaining public confidence in the judiciary and ensuring timely resolution of judicial conflicts.
To address these concerns, it is imperative to develop clear guidelines and procedures to prevent conflicting judgments and multiple interim injunctions, which have plagued the judiciary, particularly in political cases. An example of this issue is the 2023 Anambra State governorship election, where different High Courts issued conflicting orders regarding the candidacy of individuals from political parties, creating legal confusion and eroding public trust in the judicial system. Ensuring consistency in judicial decisions is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. Furthermore, conducting regular audits and evaluations, as outlined in Section 84(1) of the Constitution, is essential for ensuring compliance with ethical standards. Implementing a system of regular performance reviews for judicial officers, focusing on adherence to ethical guidelines and the quality of judicial decisions, will help in maintaining high standards of judicial conduct.
DISCIPLINE AND ACCOUNTABILITY.
The principle of separation of Powers, unequivocally provides for the independence of the NJC under Section 158 (1) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, as it is not subject to control or direction by any authority or person while exercising its Constitutional powers.
My Lordship, preserving the dignity and integrity of the judiciary hinges on upholding discipline and accountability. The 1999 Constitution, particularly Section 292, mandates a strict code of ethics and conduct for all judicial officers, providing grounds for removal in cases of misconduct or breach of ethics. However, the effectiveness of these accountability mechanisms has been questioned, as illustrated by several high-profile cases. For instance, in 2017, Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) Joseph Nwobike was charged by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) for offering gratifications to judges of the Federal High Court and the National Industrial Court to influence their decisions, reflecting a significant breach of judicial ethics and accountability. Similarly, the 2016 raid on judges’ homes by the State Security Service (SSS), which resulted in the recovery of large sums of money, exposed the extent of corruption and lack of accountability among high-ranking judicial officials. The National Judicial Council (NJC) faced criticism for refusing to investigate these allegations, citing the separation of powers and absence of petitions from the State Security Services for NJC to carry out its investigations, further highlighting the need for a robust accountability framework.
Promoting transparency and accountability within the judiciary also involves addressing issues of financial mismanagement and ensuring that all financial dealings are transparent. The resignation of former Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN) Tanko Mohammed in 2022 amid accusations of denying justices their legitimate entitlements highlighted issues of financial mismanagement and lack of transparency within the judiciary. Introducing mechanisms for increased financial transparency and public reporting will further enhance accountability and restore public trust. Also, prompt and decisive disciplinary actions against those found guilty of misconduct or corruption are essential for upholding the credibility and integrity of the judiciary.
ELECTION PETITIONS AND POLITICAL CASES
My Lordship, the role of the judiciary in elections is to uphold the popular will of the people during the polls. It is also to ensure prompt and just resolution of electoral disputes. It is our view that no elected person should assume office until a Tribunal or Court is disposed of. The current practice whereby candidates are sworn in despite pending petitions against them is one of the bane of judicial capture. It is our prayer that you would use your good offices to correct some of these anomalies and rally the judiciary around changing our electoral jurisprudence. Another very critical area we hope you would look at would be reversing the burden of proof in the elections petition. The fact that the burden of proof in an election petition rests on the petitioner who did not conduct the elections encourages INEC to consistently drop the ball since the Commission doesn’t seem obligated to owe candidates and political parties a duty of care.
My Lord, we hope that you will oversee a thorough review of historical election petitions to address concerns about judicial bias and political influence. Past petitions, such as those from the 2023 challenging President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and President Muhammadu Buhari’s Presidential Election victories, the 2015 Rivers State Governorship Election petition against Governor Wike, the 2011 Presidential Election petition against President Jonathan, the 2011 Ekiti State Governorship Election petition against Governor Fayemi, and the 2007 Presidential Election petition against President Yar’Adua, have all been marred by allegations of bias and political interference. These cases highlight the urgent need for implementing specialized training for judges handling political cases to ensure impartiality and prevent undue influence. By addressing these concerns through targeted training and oversight, the judiciary can work towards mitigating the perceptions of bias and reinforcing the credibility of its decisions.
Ensuring impartiality and fairness in judicial proceedings must be a cornerstone of the Your Lordship’s agenda. This involves upholding the constitutional rights guaranteed by Section 36(1), which enshrines the right to a fair trial, and Section 36(8), which mandates that judicial decisions must consistently be fair. To achieve this, it is essential to develop and implement clear, transparent guidelines for managing political cases, thereby addressing the concerns of perceived bias and ensuring that justice is administered equitably. Establishing these guidelines will help reinforce public trust in the judiciary’s ability to fairly adjudicate political cases, upholding the fundamental principles of justice and transparency that are crucial for maintaining the rule of law.
REFORMING THE SUPREME COURT
Reforming the Supreme Court of Nigeria necessitates both structural and procedural enhancements to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The Supreme Court is overburdened. One of the key changes that you can implement would be working with the National Assembly to seek a constitutional amendment limiting the kinds of cases that end up in the dockets of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court needs a better administration which would help by digitizing the Court and its library to aid speedy judicial conferencing, court administration, and decision-making.
Also, properly administered judicial clerkships would help relieve the Justices of some of the tedium of research and writing. It is also important to suggest that, interposing a doctrine or rules for summary procedure (without the need for or necessity of hearing) for appeals that are clearly without bases or justification, other than attrition or time wasting. My Lord, it is imperative to invest significantly in ongoing training and capacity-building for justices, as emphasized in Section 292 of the Constitution. This training should focus on equipping justices with the skills necessary to navigate complex and evolving fields, such as Information technology and Artificial Intelligence, which are increasingly relevant in contemporary legal contexts. By ensuring that justices are well-prepared and up-to-date with the latest developments in these areas, the judiciary can enhance its ability to handle sophisticated cases effectively and deliver more informed judgments.
My Lord, the success of your administration depends on engaging a broad range of stakeholders, including legal practitioners, civil society organizations, and the public, to gather valuable input and build support. Involving these groups in the reform process ensures that the changes are well-informed and reflective of the needs and expectations of the legal community and society at large. Public consultations and feedback mechanisms can provide critical insights into areas needing improvement and help in shaping reforms that are both practical and effective. By fostering a collaborative approach to judicial reform, the Supreme Court can enhance its transparency, responsiveness, and overall effectiveness, thereby strengthening the rule of law and bolstering public trust in the legal system. These comprehensive efforts will not only address existing inefficiencies but also position the Supreme Court as a modern, agile institution capable of meeting the demands of a rapidly changing legal landscape.
CONCLUSION
As you assume office, My Lord, a robust reform agenda is essential to elevate the judiciary’s standards of justice. This agenda should focus on ensuring merit-based appointments, as mandated by Section 231 of the Constitution, to combat historical nepotism exemplified by past Chief Justices, including CJN Olukayode Ariwoola. Enhancing structural and procedural efficiency is also crucial, in line with Sections 231 and 292, by investing in ongoing training for justices in emerging fields like information technology and Artificial Intelligence. Integrating modern technology, supported by Section 36(1), will streamline court processes and reduce delays through digital systems and virtual hearings. Addressing issues of conflicting judgments and interim injunctions requires clear guidelines and improved coordination, as highlighted in Sections 6 and 36, to ensure consistency and fairness. Engaging stakeholders such as legal practitioners, civil society, and the public will provide valuable input and support for these reforms. By implementing these changes, the new CJN can restore public confidence, strengthen the rule of law, and ensure the judiciary remains effective and transparent.
Signed
Prof. Ernest Ojokwu, SAN
Prof. Chidi Odinkalu
Mbasekei Martin Obono
Jaye Gaskia
Accountability Lab
Citizens Gavel
Rotimi Olwafemi
Prof. Sam Erugo, SAN
Aisha Yesufu
Centre For Journalism Innovation and Development (CJID)
Public and Private Development Centre (PPDC)
Tap iNitiative For Citizens Development