‘Many challenges await judiciary this year’

What are your expectations from the judiciary in 2014?There are going to be challenges certainly; we are moving towards another election period and of course, we are going to have challenges in some months to come for people who, for genuine reasons want to air their grievances through the courts and some who will want […]

What are your expectations from the judiciary in 2014?
There are going to be challenges certainly; we are moving towards another election period and of course, we are going to have challenges in some months to come for people who, for genuine reasons want to air their grievances through the courts and some who will want to use the judiciary as a tool, particularly on matters concerning politics.
But I think the bottom line is that judges themselves are experienced people, they would be able to see between the lines and they would be able to dispense justice. As a legal practitioner, I have never considered any matter to be simple. All matters have their peculiarities and complexities. So judges themselves are men of experience and men of training and learning, they would be able to decipher and administer justice.
Do you think our laws have been able to address the challenges of today, especially new faces of crime?
Well, the judges have been trying but I think the challenge we have is that the law is not developing fast to deal with some matters. You see, society develops every day. We have new forms of criminality; we have new forms of things which the law made provisions for but with no adequate punishment and that is where we are lacking.
An instance is the issue of kidnapping. Punishment is seven or 10 years but it has become a heinous crime now and of course, people want stiffer penalties which we are also advocating for. Stiffer penalties not necessarily death penalty but of course, you can have a longer term of imprisonment to keep such people away from the society.
Take someone who is 17 or 18 years, who gets involved in crime, by the time he gets 20 to 25 years’ jail terms, by the time he comes back after 25 years, I don’t see him going back to that crime again. He would have learnt a lot, he would have been remorseful and of course, sometimes giving up such crimes.
Do you also see the need for separate permanent court as election petition tribunal?
I think I differ. Election tribunal should be ad hoc and the reason is that after the election petitions what will the judges be doing? We know that elections don’t come every day, they come once in four years and so if they are through with election petitions, what will they be doing? I don’t agree with such view.
How do you see the recent high court ruling as regards independent funding of the judiciary?
Well, I have not fully read the judgment but I am aware about one thing; no state governor in this country sets out deliberately to violate that provision. In fact, I will tell you that each arm of government has the same problem. Yes, you talked about the independence of the judiciary; judges are not interfered with but the question of funding goes beyond what we see.
For us in Delta State, we are working on a bill on that, even before the judgment you are referring to. I think every state governor appreciates that and even the states that have that law, its operation is also not what you see.
As a lawyer, I agree the judiciary should be well-funded but the process of that depends on a lot of things, depending on the money available for the state at a given time.
For example, from the middle of last year, money from the federation account has dropped drastically; states did not get what they are entitled to, then how do you now talk of giving to the judiciary what isn’t in the budget?
So, it’s a matter of asking for the priority needs at that particular point in time. Otherwise we would have a problem and a serious deficit problem, which is not good for the country. I think the CJ and the heads of various governments would look at it and see what is practicable; what is feasible.
Independent funding might be there in the law but what is there in the provisions of the constitution might be very difficult to operate and sometimes their face value becomes serious problem.
We are prepared to fund the judiciary and that is what we have been doing. The state government understands and appreciates the need to fund the judiciary but beyond that there are other issues.
What are your challenges as the Attorney General and Commissioner for Justice?
The challenges that we have are like those in every other sector in the country. Funding is a challenge. We appreciate that but that does not stop us from working. We try to work within the available resources that we have.
The perception of the people as regard the government is that it is doing a lot. I tell you, in government, you find people wondering what the government is doing. They are not aware and sometimes when they see it, they don’t want to appreciate it because of the negative perception already in them. We are doing our best.
In this country generally, people think politicians are there for themselves alone. But, I do not think so, even though, we have some politicians that are doing that; there are still politicians who are in office to work and serve.
Coming to the Ministry of Justice, the challenge that I had initially was that of mindset. People think this is how things were being done years back and there is no need for a change. But having regards to the economy and the type of system we run, there’s need for accountability. Getting officers of the ministry to also feel accountable became initial problem. In fact, for six months I had to work hard to change the mindset.
When I got to the ministry, I found that a lawyer, who is assigned a file, does not feel obliged to conduct the matter and report. He will conduct the matter and keep the file away, so government does not know what is happening. That is why sometimes you find people saying ‘oh, government is violating certain laws or order.’
It is not that government decides to do that but you find out that people who are entrusted with these matters for advice are not sending the advice forward and I had to tackle that to ensure that every lawyer handling a matter at every given point in time must account for that matter he is handling. He must report to the relevant ministry and report also to the attorney general. That is the only way we could have control; the only way government could be law-abiding in these matters.
Apart from that, I do not think we have any other challenge. We have the total support of the governor, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan in handling the Ministry of Justice. So far, so good.
What is your take on the suggestion that the retirement age of Federal High Court judge should be extended from 65 to 70 years?
I think it should be left fluid. Even, if we increase it, not many people will have that strength to work at 70 years old. The strength they had at 65 years old may no longer be there. I think it should be left open to the option of the retiree and I think usually what our people worry about is what they will do after retirement. That is why for senior citizens, the elderly, there should be some form of assistance. For judges, yes, they are going to have pension for life but that is notwithstanding, people may not just want to sit at home. Otherwise, at 65 years old, they have paid their dues.