Fast tracking fair, efficient judiciary

The project will guarantee not only speedy, expeditious and efficient trial but also effectively fast track cases in all our courts.This has become necessary due to growing concern about the slow and tedious dispensation of justice and the attendant enormous backlog of cases.Delay in trial is against the spirit and letters of Section 36 (1) […]

The project will guarantee not only speedy, expeditious and efficient trial but also effectively fast track cases in all our courts.
This has become necessary due to growing concern about the slow and tedious dispensation of justice and the attendant enormous backlog of cases.
Delay in trial is against the spirit and letters of Section 36 (1) of the Constitution which provides for the right to fair hearing which is the foundation on which the judiciary is built.
Section 36(1) of Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution, provides thus:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations, including any question or determination by or against any government or authority, a person shall be entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by a court or other tribunal established by law and constituted in such manner as to secure its independence and impartiality.”
According to Obaseki JSC (as he then was) in Ariori v. Elemo (1983) 1 S.C. 13 it is not possible to lay down a fixed rule as to what “reasonable time” is in the trial of every case. Some cases are by their nature short or lengthy by reason of the number of witnesses to be called or the length of the testimonies of the witnesses. Others involve witnesses who do not live in the country or within the court’s jurisdiction. Documents to be put in evidence may be in the custody of a third party and may not as such be readily available for production at the trial. The health of a witness or even the trial judge may fail. All those and many more are factors which can reasonably delay the conclusion of a trial.”
There are however other bad reasons why trials may be delayed, these, according to Justice Peter Chudi Obiorah of the Anambra State High Court, include the challenges posed by unserious and mischievous litigants and some lawyers who are bent on frustrating the due proceedings of the court, particularly when they perceive that they have a bad case.
Obiorah who expressed his views at the just ended 8th annual conference of the NBA Section on Legal Practice held at the Le Meridien Ibom Hotel and Golf Resort, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, said that their modus operandi differ as their faces are different.
His words: “Some resort to writing frivolous petitions against the judge, with a view to securing a transfer of the case to another court knowing that the matter will start de novo. Others seek adjournments endlessly to wear out the judge and the opponent. Others bring flimsy and frivolous applications, which are veiled under the guise of questioning the jurisdiction of the court. The simple motive being to lure the court into making a ruling or decision, one way or the other, so they can head to the Court of Appeal, and use it as a plank to ask for stay of proceedings of the substantive matter.”
The statistics, according to Obiorah, bear evidence to the fact of a monumental increase in the volume of cases competing for determination before the courts.
“There is no doubt that the increase in the number of cases is not complemented by an increase in the number of judicial officers available to handle those cases within a reasonable time as envisaged under Section 36 of the 1999 Constitution,” he said.
The average time it takes for a case to travel from the court of first instance to the Supreme Court, which is the last in the hierarchy is 10 years.
Criminal trials are even worse because of the dire consequences on the society.
Even when after the rigmarole, the criminal trial commences after the long delay, chances are that the prosecution witnesses may not be there when the court eventually needs them. The result is that the offender still walks back to his familiar terrain.
It was against this background that JITPO-COM was inaugurated 30th January 2012 by the then CJN, Justice Dahiru Musdapher, and charged with the formulation and implementation of a comprehensive information technology for the Nigerian judiciary.
Chairman of the Judicial Committee (JITPO-COM) Justice Kashim Zannah, who doubles as the CJ Borno State at the presentation of the Nigeria Case Management System (NCMS) and the commissioning of the Supreme Court of Nigeria and National Judicial Council (NJC) data centres, said that the successes achieved in the implementation of the project stemmed from the unwavering support received from the Chief Justice of Nigeria, (CJN) Justice Mariam Mukhtar who immediately on assumption of office made court automation her priority and she remained steadfast to the goal.
“She actively participated with the committee in reviewing the best practices to adopt, including a trip to South Korea, the only federation with an effectively integrated court technology infrastructure.
“Our policy aims at an integrated system for the entire Nigerian judiciary, such that cases may seamlessly move from the trial to the apex court. The experiences of most other nations, even the advanced ones, have been of varied and disparate systems. We seek to avoid the challenges they now face in integrating these systems, especially in large nations like ours,”  Justice Kashim Zannah said.
 By the design, all activities in the courts will be automated and operated through electronics.
Justice Zannah said that the new innovation is to improve court efficiency, access to justice and transparency, increase public trust and confidence in courts among others.
 He added that the electronic court will solve the problem of the slow and tedious dispensation of justice and the attendant enormous backlog of cases.
“The NJC data centre is built around the “Vblock” system. The system is the world’s most advanced converge infrastructure and guarantees faster application deployment, enables backup, replication, workload balancing, seamless business continuity, lower total cost of ownership, improves IT productivity and disaster recovery within and across data centres. The systems are all factory-built and fully supported by VCE, a company formed by industry leaders like Cisco, EMC and VMware.”
The CJN in her remarks stated that the interest and support for the implementation Technology Policy emanated from the collective desire to perform the statutory duties with utmost professionalism.
She said that the automation project is to improve court efficiency, access to justice and transparency thereby increasing public trust and confidence in courts.
The CJN further stated that the automated court aligns with the vision of transforming from the current predominantly manual court processes and its attendant weaknesses, to technological solutions ‘tailor – made’ for the Nigerian judiciary.
About 16 courts are in the first phase of the pilot sites. They are; Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Abuja and Lagos divisions, the Federal High Court, Abuja and Lagos divisions and the National Industrial Court, Abuja and Lagos divisions.
Others are the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, the High Court, Bayelsa, High Court, Borno, High Court, Ebonyi and High Court, Kaduna.