Law School failure rate baffling – Prof Gidado

Professor Maxwell Gidado (SAN), former Dean, Faculty of Law of Nasarawa State University, was a deputy director of Academics at the Nigerian Law School. He is currently on sabbatical with the National Assembly. In this interview, he advises the deputy Senate president, Ike Ekweremadu and speaks on the fallen standard of legal education, appointment of […]

Professor Maxwell Gidado (SAN), former Dean, Faculty of Law of Nasarawa State University, was a deputy director of Academics at the Nigerian Law School. He is currently on sabbatical with the National Assembly. In this interview, he advises the deputy Senate president, Ike Ekweremadu and speaks on the fallen standard of legal education, appointment of judges, law for development, and other issues. Excerpts:

There is so much concern about the standard of legal education. Where lies the problem?
My opinion as far as the fallen standard of legal education is concerned is inevitably tied to the fallen standard of education in Nigeria generally. When you look at the quality of both academic staff and content of the programmes that students are being taught nowadays, you can’t really definitely compare them with what we went through. In our days teachers were dedicated; they were well remunerated and what they were paid could take them a whole month without their having to look elsewhere. The teaching materials were also available and affordable.
In the faculties of Law, you discover that the lecturers could be trying their best to inculcate knowledge but because of the poor background, it becomes a problem. You know in Law, a student has to be well-grounded in grammar and literature-in-English. But when you don’t have these tools very well, your teacher could be the best professor of Law, still there will be a problem because he can’t go down and be teaching you the rudiments of English 101.
So when you see them come into the law school and they have that shaky background, it will impact at the end of the day. A lecturer coming to mark their scripts finds it hard to comprehend what these students are writing. Obviously, it will prick his conscience if he just allows them to pass because these are the crop of people that will appear at the courts and the judges will always be wondering whether they went through the four walls of the university or even passed the Bar exams.
The failure rate in law schools is said to be high. Why is it so?
When I first heard of the total number of students re-sitting the Bar exams, I just recapped that as a professor of Law, passing the Bar exams was usually pragmatic and professional. The content is not too academic as in the university, which sometimes you just cram and regurgitate some texts and you pass your exams.
I am happy with the last amendment to the Legal Education Act, where a committee was set up to review the style of legal education. Students are taught more about skills of practice. They are exposed to how lawyers administer and argue cases and also have more time for their law office attachment so that they have that first-hand information. These are contents that are not too academic and it baffles one how students fail in such huge numbers. You can trace this to the structural problem of how they all came up from this shaky background so that it spills over to the university and law school.
I am happy they have a system where these students would go back, stay on the campus for about two months and do a rigorous revision before they re-sit. In our days, you just come for one week before the exams. I subscribe to this idea of giving them a second chance to do a thorough revision before the re-sit. And I try to advice the law school not to compromise standards because of reactions from outside.
So many legal practitioners are demanding for a review of the criteria for selection of the Senior Advocates of Nigeria. Where do you stand in this debate?
I know we are sharply divided in the legal profession on the methods of selecting Senior Advocates of Nigeria. There are some colleagues who seem not to agree with the methodology of appointing members of the profession to the exalted rank of SAN.
But by and large, I agree with the present method by the Legal Practitioners Privileges Committee in picking the lawyers after they might have submitted their applications. The criteria is stated which include: the number of appearances in the higher courts and the number of successes, recommendation from judges you appear before about your character in relation to the Code of Ethics of the Legal Profession, number of publications that are being cited, mentoring of young lawyers, pro bono cases, and contribution to raising the standard in law.
Law is supposed to play a key role in the  socio-economic development of the country. Is it measuring up to this requirement?
One of the cardinal functions of Law in the society is that it acts as a tool of social engineering. Law propels development. The first example of a society poised for advancement will be the observance of law and order.
For instance, where it is said a particular good to be manufactured in that country is to abide by a certain standard, that regulatory standard is the ‘law’. If you abide by that law definitely the commodity will be of high value and be imported by other countries. You can imagine the foreign exchange that will be flowing into that country.
Also, the observance of rules and regulations advances that society. A society that abides by the rules advances, the reverse is the case for a society that does not play by the rules. In Nigeria for instance, corruption is the bane of development. It is the disobedience to the rules by those in positions by diverting funds from projects appropriated through legislation. But if those funds for roads, railways, bridges etc are not diverted for private purposes, it is just a matter of time that society advances. So Law is development.
Do you agree with calls for change in the criteria for appointment of judges particularly, Supreme Court justices?
 I have been one of those advocates that membership of the Supreme Court be made open. As the apex court, if you just allow only those who come in through the lower court, you are denying the court from the expertise of those from the academia, etc. From the Appeal Court, you begin to see judges sit in panels and as the saying goes, ‘two heads are better than one’.
So if in composition of a panel, you come from a lower court, academics and practicing lawyers, you see a very sound debate when they are conferencing. If the case is on Sharia Law for instance, you have one with the experience to educate others. So it will be good to diversify the selection. Like we had the precedent where T.O. Elias came from the academics and he ended up a very brilliant justice of the Supreme Court. There was also Justice Niki Tobi who came in from the academics, though he had to start from the lower court and rose to the higher court.
Again, Supreme Court justices should be given the benefit of appointing their research assistants and well remunerated. You don’t expect judges in their 60s and 70s to be pacing up and down the library looking for books, and writing in long hand.
Should the succession to the office of CJN be made open or continue with precedent?
As far as the succession to the Chief Justice of Nigeria is concerned, I would like the status quo to be maintained. Any justice that comes, queues up. If it is seniority, the Supreme Court maintains precedents, otherwise, people may introduce politics into it. It is natural that the next person takes over.