‘Judiciary is a critical partner in anti-corruption war’

The judiciary appears to be under the spotlight with the current war against corruption. Do you believe they are playing their role creditably in the fight against corruption? Indeed the judiciary is a critical component in the war against corruption. It is however, only a part of the collage and if the other parts are […]

The judiciary appears to be under the spotlight with the current war against corruption. Do you believe they are playing their role creditably in the fight against corruption?
Indeed the judiciary is a critical component in the war against corruption. It is however, only a part of the collage and if the other parts are dysfunctional we will end up with a jumbled picture rather than the perfect outcome we all desire. We tend to equate the judiciary, which is a collective name for judges, with the administration of justice.  We forget that there is a whole support system that has to be properly functional in order for the judges to perform at optimum as well. The judge has to have a court that works! Communication, data entry and storage, reliable research support, and all of those things we require as practitioners and more.
Where judgments have been delivered and litigants are waiting for weeks for these to be typed up, or a judge is constrained to carry files home because the registry may misplace the file due to the inefficiency of the system, then clearly the justice administration system is not only failing the Nigerian masses, it is failing the judiciary. 
Is the judiciary not in charge of the justice administration system, and that being the case, why can the stakeholders not make it more efficient?
It would appear on the face of it that the judiciary is in charge of the justice system, but the reality as expressed in the old adage, ‘he who pays the piper, dictates the tune’, is that the executive and to an extent the NASS control the purse strings and therefore, have a crucial role to play in determining how efficiently our justice administration system works.
The 2016 budget is not at all encouraging in that respect as the provision for justice administration is woefully inadequate. In order to ensure that the courts are equipped to play their role as a crucial part of the war against corruption, they must be properly funded by way of a supplementary budget this year, not 2017.
What about the various petitions against judges, is that not a reflection of the quality of the judges rather than the justice system?
Well, on this issue, I think we all should be guided by the statistics. Justice Aloma Mukhtar you’ll recall said that upon her assumption of office as Chair of the NJC, the panel inherited 139 petitions of which 106 were, to quote her, “vexatious and baseless”. This description of vexatious and baseless applied to more than three quarters of all the petitions against judges that was inherited by the former CJN and the NJC at the time, for goodness sake! She went on to say that after assumption of office they  received 198 petitions, 150 of which were found to be frivolous. Again, approximately three quarters. That is an inordinately high number and seems to imply, at least in my considered opinion, that the problem is not with the judges per se, but with the petitioners who are invariably litigants before these judges. And perhaps with those who represent them. It is either these litigants have not been properly guided or have not had the benefit of professional assistance at all.
What about the petitions against judges?
More recently, we are witnessing the debilitating effects of these frequent, mostly unfounded but nonetheless damaging petitions on our justice system. When a judge feels obliged to rescue himself as was reported recently, due to an allegation of bribery on online news websites and other questionable publications, then the pendulum is clearly not balanced and steps need to be taken to balance the equation.  Another example is the recent furore about a judge and a litigant belonging to the same class of the Nigerian Law School. Incidentally, this happens to be my class and I can tell you that I did not know the judge in the law school, nor the petitioner, nor any of the other class members who have commented on this thus far.
If a judge is to rescue himself for attending law school at the same time as a litigant before him, it stands to reason that he must also rescue himself if a class mate appears before him as an advocate. Where will it end?
We seem to have a penchant for setting up various judicial commissions and panels of inquiry. How useful are these, do they really contribute to the yearnings of the masses for justice?
Judicial commissions are not peculiar to Nigeria and can certainly be a useful tool in investigating specific incidents or issues and possibly proffering solutions from their findings. However, such commission or panel, has to have the confidence of all the parties in order for it to perform its assignment successfully. Take the recent incident in Kaduna State between the army and members of the Shiite sect headed by Zakzaky. The lawyers to the sect recently announced that they would not appear before the commission. The incidents arising out of the recent Rivers State re-run election have also resulted in the state government setting up a commission.
The question that arises, to my mind every time a commission is set, is how inclusive is the process. Did government consult all stakeholders in relation to the composition of the panel, terms of reference and modus operandi prior to setting up the commission or did it proceed unilaterally and then invite stakeholders as has been the case more often than not. Furthermore, do we set up these panels and commissions as a means to an end rather than an end in itself?
 Are lawyers part of the problem or the solution?
Our professional ethics requires us to be a part of the solution. We are officers of the court as well as advocates and advisers to parties before the court and our clients in non-litigious transactions. Every Nigerian is entitled to a lawyer if charged before a court, no matter how heinous the crime or how large the sum alleged to have been stolen. Hence, all of those currently charged with corruptly enriching themselves or others with our common wealth are entitled to their day in court and their choice of lawyer or lawyers. However, we must not assist litigants who may be inclined to do so, to pervert the course of justice by our superior knowledge of the justice administration system and the inherent weaknesses of the system.