Judgement-fixing claims that won’t go away

Reports of compromised judicial officers, procured decisions in favour of the highest bidder, and injection of personal biases in matters that require pure and untainted judgements, have portrayed the judiciary in unflattering light. Even its senior members have expressed concern. Last year, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, minced no words in stating […]

Reports of compromised judicial officers, procured decisions in favour of the highest bidder, and injection of personal biases in matters that require pure and untainted judgements, have portrayed the judiciary in unflattering light. Even its senior members have expressed concern. Last year, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Mukhtar, minced no words in stating her determination to flush out bad eggs that have given the judiciary a bad name. A number of judicial officers were thereafter disciplined. But perception of corruption has continued to dog the judiciary.
That is why when former President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Ayo salami, said recently that corruption in the judiciary was real and had eaten deep into the system, he was merely restating what the public already knew. Speaking at the 2014 Biennial Law Week of the Ilorin branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, Salami said that ‘some dishonourable people’ not fit to be judges have made it to the highest level of judicial ladder.  He singled out judgment-fixing as one of the most lucrative areas that serving and retired judicial officers engage to acquire wealth, noting that Chief Justice Mukhtar’s efforts to rid the judiciary of corrupt elements were being “frustrated” by some unnamed members of the National Judicial Council (NJC).
 Of course, Salami has only joined a long list of former office holders who complain about the system only when they have retired. Justice Salami himself was forced in politically charged circumstances to retire in October 2013 after serving more than 30 months’ suspension following a presidential order. Indeed, Salami asserted that the reason why the problems of the judiciary would persist was that whoever dared to tell the truth was “marked for destruction”. Salami must be aware of the interplay between evidence and proof. Without mentioning names or citing examples, his allegation cannot stand in court. But this should not detract from the gravity of his statement, which should be taken seriously.  Justice Salami’s statement came as both the NJC and CJN are taking action to cleanse the judiciary. One of the problems in dealing with corrupt judges is that government must ensure that the retirements are not seen as politically motivated. Every disciplinary case must be public and transparent. A number of judicial officers have been linked to “judgment procurement” by which they became stupendously rich. Some of them have been identified as living “above their legal means”.
 It is embarrassing that certain judicial pronouncements in Nigeria, which were readily cited in courts Britain and the United States, are no longer regarded as reliable references. As the Supreme Court presides over the cases of 23 judges who are being investigated over large-scale corruption, the CJN has called for a new judicial code of ethics that would reflect current realities and challenges to tackle judicial corruption in the country. One of such realities that must be dealt with is the tendency of politicians to bribe judges in order to obtain favourable judgements. Any judicial officer who cannot resist such pressures and openly rebuke those involved is not fit to be on the Bench under any guise.  Salami has recommended the adoption of the Kenyan model in which all errant judges are suspended and asked them to explain their controversial judgments. Where they fail to do so, they are considered incompetent and retired.  There is nothing intrinsically bad in the time-honoured process of disciplining Nigerian judges who are found wanting. That process should be revived and strengthened. Individual members of the NJC should not introduce their personal proclivities into the Council’s work; otherwise it would be seen as part of the problem instead of being instrumental to the solution.