National policy on Justice may serve useful purpose

Literally, a national policy is a course of action adopted from time to time by the Federal Government to check or settle recurrence of issues upon which there is need for consistency. As an illustration, the national policy on education was formulated to promote and enhance standards of education throughout the country. Federal and State […]

Literally, a national policy is a course of action adopted from time to time by the Federal Government to check or settle recurrence of issues upon which there is need for consistency. As an illustration, the national policy on education was formulated to promote and enhance standards of education throughout the country. Federal and State Ministries of Agriculture could establish policies to protect the interest of farmers and ensure uninterrupted food supply to the people. Likewise, the Federal Ministry of Health can initiate policies and strategies on the improvement of health delivery. Logically too, the Federal Ministry of Justice can play an essential role in innovating a national policy on justice by which the courts and other interested parties will be guided. The committee recently set up by the Honourable Attorney General of the Federation to produce the policy is therefore a welcome initiative.
The administration of justice, both criminal and civil, is the sole responsibility of the courts. As a matter of routine, interpretation of laws belongs to the courts. Indeed, the courts shoulder heavy responsibilities in trying cases and settling disputes. It is because of the weight of this responsibility that considerable time is taken in delivering judgements which can take months or even years for cases to be finalized. Despite the public outcry on unnecessary delays, high costs of litigations and congestion of cases, the situation leaves much to be desired as there are no signs for improvement. I read recently that there are over 5000 appeal cases awaiting the consideration and decision of the Supreme Court! I understand that courts in the states are at liberty to set up their own procedures on the dispensation of cases but must base their judgements on prevailing statutory laws. There are of course Federal and States courts with differing powers and jurisdictions which structurally make up the Judiciary with the Supreme Court as its apex. Some administer English received laws while others are concerned with the customary or Islamic laws as given in Nigerian statutes. Tribunals and other quasi-judicial bodies also function in accordance with the laws establishing them.
Each court appears to enjoy independence on its decision to dispense justice according to laws which can only be reviewed by a superior court through appeal. The Supreme Court again is the final arbiter and its rulings are judicial precedents that must be obeyed by lower courts. Coordination of these courts on matters of law will tantamount to interference but quite permissible on administrative matters. There are bodies such as the National Judicial Council and the Judicial Service Commission which can exercise control on judicial officers performing duties as judges particularly on discipline as well as promotion often times through recommendations to State Governors or the Head of State.
It is indeed time to streamline the rules of procedure in the courts in an effort to reduce delays in the disposal of cases as justice delayed is justice denied. Uniformity may not be achieved in the short run in view of our society’s heterogeneous cultures, religious philosophies and the legal procedures adopted and sustained for considerable length of time. What is much more important however is to ensure fair play and equity without allowing technicalities to absolve criminals from punishment. The legal system should manifestly be seen to be plausible and impartial.
Although attorneys general and judges are both qualified lawyers, they may differ some of the time on the interpretation of the laws initiated by the Ministries of Justice and passed into acts by the House of or the National Assemblies. As a result, there could be conflicts on legislations which would take time to sort out. The exertion of political influence on the courts in certain instances led to the evasion of just interpretation of laws.
I notice that the Committee’s terms of reference include examination of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy perhaps on the justiciability of individual liberties, rights and privileges as enshrined in the Constitution. I believe the essence really is to stress the importance of public welfare. Lawyers have pointed out and stressed that the government cannot just be sued in the courts for failing to provide the privileges prescribed under the directive principles of state policy. A citizen cannot claim damages for government inability to provide him with health or educational facilities.
It is hoped that the Committee will come up with practical remedies that will curb malpractices in the dispensation of justice so that people will harbor no more grievances on the inadequacies of our legal system. It will furthermore be quite exciting to see what the envisaged national policy on justice seeks to achieve in the improvement of justice dispensation, elimination of delays, reduction of costs of litigation and assuring the public of fairness in treating their cases without corruption. And I pray that the new policy will not collide with significant legal processes, procedures and even statutes.   
Amb B.M. Sani, wrote this piece from Sharada Quarters, Kano. He can be reached at [email protected]